Awesome review, thanks. I use my R7 with the RF 100-500 for birding, occasionally adding the 1.4x TC for extra reach. I was tempted by the 200-800, but you've persuade me to save my money. Lovely photos, thanks for sharing.
Just a quick comment about your comment on packaging. Having worked at a freight company unloading and loading packages, believe me you do want that extra box for extra protection. Boxes do get thrown around and dropped quite often. Cheers. Now for the rest of the vid as I own the R6 and R7 as well with the Sigma 150-600.
Thank you. I'll take your advice on that one! I was wondering about bubble wrap in the smaller box but that said from an eco perspective, it's probably worse than more cardboard and what they have now.
I've used the 100-500 and sold it to buy the RF 200-800. On the R5 and the R6MKII, now on the R7. I need the range and so the answer for me is 200-800. But everyone has to look what he needs.
Hey Phil, Really enjoyed that mate, as you know I’ve got the 1-5 and love it as my go to lens, light quick and pretty good in low light, and for hand held BIF’s dam good! Used the 2-8 on an R5 over the winter, nice and good AF in good light, bit on the weighty side but all in all a great lens and not a bad price! Will probably get one when I’m running tours in Costa Rica next year, just don’t tell the wife 😝👍. Nice work buddy, and about that packaging 😅😅😅. Cheers Rich 👍
Thanks, mate. Yeah, the packaging sure got a lot of comments! If you do get it, do so from the states if you can. I worked out I could probably get a return flight to New York on deal, walk into a shop and buy the lens, fly back home and still have change in my pocket vs buying it in the UK! If I'm doing any long distance hiking and need one lens I still prefer the 1-5 with a teleconverter in the bag due to size, weight and more nimble to handhold.
I have both these lenses & both the same camera bodies - I can 100% agree with you on your opinion on the R7, the R6 and the 200-800. I went to Colombia in the rainforest took around 9k photos on each camera body and very few of the R7 were in proper focus, most were soft - whereas on the R6 - the photos were mostly in focus, way better in low light and was my weapon of choice...
I really prefer the RolanPro covers for lenses. I have one on my 100-500mm and 200-800mm. The LensCoat neoprene covers fray at the edges in a year. This doesn't happen with RolanPro. The noise you're hearing, is the lens constantly trying to auto-focus? I have Continuous AF turned off in my camera settings. I use the R5. I sold my R7 but even when I had it, Continuous AF was turned off. I only recently got my 200-800mm. I've only had one day out with it. I didn't notice that sound you're hearing but will pay closer attention next time. Great review and comparison between the lenses. Thank you!!!
Hi Cath. Thanks very much for the tip on RolandPro. I've since bought a Lenscoat one but I'm not entirely happy with the for for the 200-800 so I'll also look up Roland Pro. I did try turing off continous AF but it didn't make difference. Cracking suggestion, though, it was well worth a try.
@@wildphil I hear that noise as well with the R5, and I disabled continuous AF long ago because it's mainly a battery waster. The noise from my 200-800 is pretty low level which I don't notice while shooting. but even when IS and/or AF are disabled you hear it is long as the camera doesn't fall asleep. So far I never encountered someone putting a finger on exactly what's going on in there, but my only concern about it is regarding potential impact on battery life ..
Great review other than your comments on the packaging. I have R6mkII, R7, RF 100-500mm, 1,4x extender and RF 800mm f/11. R7 in good light + 800mm is great also for fast flying eiders and ducks. Of particular value to me was you tests of image quality of the 200-800mm compared with the L lens + extender. I'll likely in a year upgrade my 800mm to 200-800mm in spite of the higher weight. Faster focusing, much lower close-up distance, advantage of other than 800mm focal range. For use primarily with my R7.
I have R7, R6mk2, 100-500 & 200-800 & 800F11. My 800F11 has been a great lens but I was constantly having opportunies where a bird landed within 15 feet of me and I couldn't get the pic. The 100-500 is an amazing lens but then I lost the reach of the 800F11. I tried the 1.4 tele on it and it basically was the same performance (once cropped in) as the 800F11. Then I got the 200-800 and for me its the most versatile. It takes great pics on both bodies and compared to the 100-500 its still very close in quality. So in summary if you can fill the frame with the 100-500 then its the best lens but when you need the range the 200-800 is best lens with little sacrafice. I will say F10 on the 200-800 worked better than F9 as far as helping soft focus issues with the R7.
Thanks for your comment. For me a key advantage of the zoom is I find it easier to locate subjects in the viewfinder because I can zoom out to see them, aquire focus, and zoom back in again.
Dear Phil: The box inside a box packaging is very important to protect the lens. Those plastic trays suspend the lens and absorb shock. Also. there is nothing but the lens in thin plastic in the inner box. I’m surprised you would criticize Canon who ships many lenses around the world.
Hmm... I was thinking about a halfway larger inner box with more protective bubble wrap, like the older days. But that said, maybe it's less eco-friendly than the extra cardboard we have now. I get what they are trying to do in terms of protection.
The 100-500 is so portable. I was actually thinking of getting a 600 f4 but realized the best lens in the world is worthless if you don’t have it with you. I was stunned at how sharp it is and I have the 300 2.8 and the RF 100-300 2.8 and the EF 100-400 mark II. If the 200-800 is competitive with the 100-500…that is impressive for the price point. Having watched your video and given my experience I would again get the 100-500 and the 1.4 TC. Also your R7 experience matches mine. Everything works better on my R6…but sometimes you just need the APS/C.
Great video. I have the 100-500 and would probably have gone 200-800 if both had been available when I was buying. It's hard not to envy that Sony 200-600.
Hi Phil, thanks for putting this much work in the comparison ! Mostly loved your short eared owls ! My best encounter with them was while still shooting a 70D, and so far they've escaped my 100-500 and 200-800 🙈 Thanks to a promotion, I've actually paid exactly the same for both these white zooms and I find them pretty complementary. Earlier I popped the 1.4x on the 100-500 for nearly 50% of the time, but the 420-700 wasn't too practical and it was best to stop down for optimal IQ. Now I have both I basically grab the 200-800 whenever I used add the extender in the past. The 100-500 is more agile and has a closer MFD, but the 200-800 generates at the long end clearly more bokeh.
Hi Werner. Thanks for you reply. I would 100% agree that if you can, use the 200-800mm instead of the 100-500 if you are using a 1.4x teleconverter. The focussing is not quite a good, bu the extra light is welcome along with the extra reachand also the ability to zoom back to 200mm. That said, with the 100-500 I still find this a versitile combination if I need to be mobile and space and weight are and issue with my camera bag, or if I'm hiking for wildlife.
@@wildphil Oh yes, back in July we visited the puffin Island Lunga in Scotland. First I took some bokeh shots at 800/9 of static puffins, and then most of the time I tried puffins in flight with the 100-500. I wouldn't wanna miss both of these lenses 😀
Phil you did a fantastic review here I loved how you did it . There are so many people are comparing these 2 lenses , I just bought the 200 - 800 I haven't even pulled it out of the box yet , I really wish Tamron and Sigma would come up with their own RF lenses in this focal length I think they would be very good options .
Thanks for your kinds words. Totally with you on Tamron and Sigma, I'd love it if Canon opened up the mount and those two manufacturers could put something out there. I still have the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and it still gets amazing shots even when adapted on to the RF mount cameras..
@@wildphil Phil my Tamron 150 to 600 is not doing very good adapted meaning on the R mount cameras as I have the R3 and R7 with these camera's they just simply won't auto focus very good at all with those 2 bodies but yet they auto focus beautifully with my 1DX and my 7D Mk II .
Outdoor photography gear have a neoprene lens cover for the 200-800 lens. As a bonus they're made in the UK and are much higher quality than the lenscoat brand as well as being cheaper!
Awesome, thank you very much, Justin. You're the 2nd person to recommend these people so I'll definitely take a look. Since filming I did purchase a lenscoat cover and whilst I was very happy with the 100-500, the fit on this one seems a bit more loose. Great to hear there's a UK made option too ! 👍👍
You are the first UA-cam reviewer to mention the noise from the RF 200-800. Jan Wegener and Scott West (Wild Alaska) both use this lens frequently for birding and neither noted any noise. Is it perhaps you are just very sensitive to it? It would be helpful to demonstrate the noise by holding the camera and lens up to your mic. The biggest problem with putting a teleconverter on the 100-500 is losing focal length at the short end. You have to extend the lens to 300mm just to mount the converter, so you end up with a 420-700mm zoom. If the subject moves towards you, you can find yourself too close to it. The 200-800 is both 100mm longer at the long end and shorter at the short end, while being a 1/3 stop faster at the long end. The 200-800 is thus much more versatile.
Thanks for your detailed comments there, John. I did wonder about doing a video on the noise, but I'm not sure I'll get the time soon. What I can say is, since filiming, the 100-500 makes the same noise, but 200-800 is noticeably louder. Why? I don't know. Is just my particular copy of the lens? Again, I don't know, unfortunately. It's not a deal breaker and I only hear it outside when I am miles away from any roads or traffic and there is true silence but as I hadn't noticed it before I felt I should mention it. Agree with your point on the focal length and aperture on the 200-800 vs 100-500 and 1.4 extender. If you need to walk many miles to a location the weight and extra size in the bag is noticeable, however, and for stalking/walking or handheld use the 100-500 (for me) is less off-putting wildlife as its a smaller footprint to swing around.
@@wildphil thanks, and fair points for you. I have the 100-500 and have never noticed any noise during still or video shooting. OTOH I'm 70 and maybe I've lost a little high-end hearing. 😉😂
@@JohnDrummondPhoto I woulnd't let it put you off buying the lens if you are considering it, John. I'd estimate in 80% of use cases outside I won't hear it - it's only when I'm in those super quiet locations miles from anywhere and there is no ambinet noise from traffic or wildlife - by that I mean those creepy locations where there is literally no sound at all!
I'm very happy with the 100-500. It's outright compact and lightweight considering it's reach. The images I've taken with it so far amaze me every time with their sharpness, detail, and color when editing them. The 200-800 is simply too large for my backpack, and I wouldn't want to travel with it.
My 200-800 shipped today! Should have it on Thursday! Now I can do my own testing. also, I had been using my r7 with the 100-500 but now I can use the r5 instead, giving me more pixels per duck at the same focal length, so the r7+100-500 no long has an advantage. Now, I know a professional bird photographer in FL who claims the r7+200-800 works great in good light but you need to use a high shutter speed. Unlike you in the UK, we have many sunny days here in SE USA. We shall see!😊
Congratulations on your new purchase! It's a good lens and I'm sure it'll make a great addition to your collection, especially if you're using it in the sunshine state! 👍
I agree with you on the focusing of the r7 vs a full frame camera like the r6. i have noticed this several times myself. For some reason that crop sensor just doesn’t “see” as well as its full frame cousins.
And I’d be the first one to admit that. But if you always need more reach than you can get with a FF camera, you really don’t have much choice. My R5 probably focused a little better than my R7’s, but I was constantly doing 100% crops, and sometimes that still wasn’t enough. My R7’s definitely miss a lot of shots, but rarely will I shoot in bursts and not get 1 or 2 that are tack sharp. And I only need 1. Btw, I’m “not” shooting stuff a long ways away. I typically shoot small birds from 22-30 ft.
I use the canon r7 with the rf100-500 and have had similar experiences with the camera. It's good for the price, but the focus isn't always where you want it to be. I have ordered the R5 Mark II and will see whether the rf100-500 and, if necessary, the crop mode of the R5 Mark II are enough for me or whether I will have to buy more focal length. As I already own the 1.4 extender, I can also work with it.
Hi Phil great review l have the R7 with the 100-500 at the moment l am going to get the R5 mark ii but l am bit worried about the reach with R5 and the 100 - 500 as l do birds do you think it will ok as it’s got 45 mp thanks Keith
Hi Keith. I've used the R6 original with the 100-500 and in the field (I mean a big wide open field like Salibsury Plain in the UK) I found it a bit short on full frame. But that said I didn't have the same cropping ability as you do on the R5. If you pair it with a teleconverter I think it'll be fine - it'll never beat the lower F4 primes but it's light and very verisitle. In fact as I write this right now I'm on a family trip to Scotland, I'm hoping to squeeze some wildlife photography in but I need something compact and lightweight for walkng. If it helps I chose the R6 with 100-500mm and 1.4x teleconverter. I left the 200-800mm at home.
I appreciate that canon use 2 boxes which means to me they care about keeping this lens secure while in transit. The way boxes give the lens more protection for shipping through the awful Parcel Force, DPS, model, third party amazon couriers who do not give a rats arse about damaging customers parcels.
Hi Jimmy. I ran the RAW image through DXO Pure Raw4 (there is a free trial for 2 weeks link in this description) as it does apply some small sharpening by default. The rest was just Adobe Lightroom editing using the sharpening tools it has.
Thanks for the video. I just got this lens for my R5 and boy is it a beast compared to my 100-500. I have some neck and shoulder issues but never had an issue with the 100-500 but this lens is a whole different story lol def need a tripod for this one.
@@wildphil you can definitely hand hold for a few shots but for anything your going to be holding it for a while a tripod is definitely a must ., for me at last 😄 🤣
Hi that a real complete review👏👏👏 even if I’m not a Canon shooter. You Canon users are lucky as you can adapt old big prime to RF mount and it seems to works quite well. The price of both lens match the price of an 500mmf4 which with the r7 and r6 is solid option for low light cause of the aperture. What do you think?
Thanks, Dan. I don't have experience of an F4 prime myself but from I've seen many great results from others that do, and with the R7 too. I reckon what you have suggested is likely to be a solid option and a good choice for low light and I suspect you're right, the R7 would likely perform much better too 👍
Thanks for this review! Since the 200-800 is not available nowadays and since the 100-500 is also pretty useful for landscape photography, I am going for the latter. (availability being prime concern). Additional teleconferters do make it a costly affair though. 😢
Yeah, I'd heard the lens was out of stock from quite a few people. The 100-500 is still a great lens though and works very well with the teleconverter but yes, as you say, there are additional costs.
Hi Tony. It's made by a company called Jack Pyke and you can buy it on amazon (affiliate link) here: amzn.to/4cqwmgT - they produce jackets and trousers to match. If you are in the UK you can also buy it at Go Outdoors. I also have other camo items linked in the description of this video if it helps.
Hi Tom. It's from Lenscoat. I have a review on a similar cover for the 100-500 lens cover here: ua-cam.com/video/QQ-SSXk_zSw/v-deo.html - It could just be my own individual copy of the cover but I feel the one for the 100-500 is better made even though the materials are the same. Pattern is Realtree Max5 on both.
Nice review. I waited a long time before I bought the RF200-800. The weight, lack of removal tripod foot and the light needed for it to work well vs my RF100-500. I have only had the 200-800 for a few weeks but my concerns were justified. What I like it not having to put a teleconverter on it and the problems with the RF100-500 and a teleconverter. If the teleconverter worked as it should with the RF100-500 I never would have gotten the RF200-800. On a bright day and in open areas such as plains where you can't get close, this is a great lens. For a quick light lens and shorter distances then the RF100-500 is the best. I have not tried the 1.4 or 2X converters on the RF200-800 yet. I. know the 1.4 works well as I have seen lots of pics on UA-cam. If money is not a problem or you are a professional photographer, then the RF200-800 is something to have. If not. then deal wit the tele converts and the RF100-500 when the extra reach is needed.
Thanks, Dan. Yeah, my conclusions pretty much mirror yours. You'd be surprised at how well the 1.4x extender works on the 200-800 but the biggest issue is the magnification of haze or atmospherics.
Hi... I shoot the r7... I don't know which lens to pick. This 200-800 or the 100- 500.. I will be replacing my current and old tamrom 70-300 with the rf 70-200mm 2.8..soon but after that lens ill need extreme zoom.. I don't know what I should get.. the r7 isnt as good in low light as its not a lower pix full frame .. which would you use.. please, please advise.. I really value your advice..
Tough one as it's down to personal choice. Also, I've never used the EF 400mm but if you already have that lens I'd be inclined to go for the longer 200-800mm so that you have a greater range of focal lengths covered, assuming it's for wildlife photography. Everyne's own needs a different but I think that's probably the way I'd go.
As far as the noise in the lens being always on try shutting off Continuous Auto Focus in the focusing menu which keeps the lens continually focusing even when not pressing any buttons and by default keeps the image stabilizer going also continuously
Thanks for the great suggestion, it was well worth a try, but sadly didn't do the trick. Great thinking, though, I thought you might have solved it with that idea. Maybe I've just got a noisy one!
Yea... problem about these long lenses are their size and weight really matters. I wont mention price because if you can afford you can if not save up and you could. But weight and size of it is something we have no control of. And it really matter because it affects how you can bring it out to use it ornot... The experience out in the field.. and what bag or tripod you need to use.. (take into account of bringing the gear on a airplane as well) etc etc.. The same problem with those huge long prime.. 1 may be able to afford but to bring it out .. is really a concern. The 100-500 suddenly look so small beside the 200-800.
Yes, size and weight between those two lenses is definately something to consider, particularly if you do a lot of hiking to locations and you have to allow space for other stuff and supplies in your bag etc. I recently hiked 8 miles to and from a location and decided to opt for the 100-500 simply based on size and weight alone.
Thank you! 👍. There's a gear review playlist on my channel homepage, but I usually do more vlog based stuff. I have a few others planned in the next few months.
I've used both on the R7. If you're only shooting aviation and smaller birds at closer ranges, the 100-500 should be your only consideration. On a 1.6x crop, the 200-800 is stupidly long and you get issues with focus hunting and softness on the long end
Can't say I've noticed any softness on my particular copy of the lens, but the focussing is definately noticeably worse on a crop sensor cameras vs full frame.
Hi Phil, A genuinely great comparison video & very relevant to myself having recently made the switch to an RF mount body (R6ii) & still currently using adapted EF glass. I was seriously considering the 200-800 & the 100-500L (sure I would love a 600 F4L - but erm… 💰💰💰) & I was always leaning towards the 100-500L with maybe a 1.4x if absolutely necessary. Watching this has really nailed that for me, & later down the line there could be an option to add the 200-800 or indeed Canon may have released something else by that time. Ideally I’d like to see them challenge Nikon’s ‘budget’ 180-600 lens but with a 100-500 & now the 200-800 already in the line up of telephoto zoom lenses - it’s unlikely I guess. Interesting you mentioned the weight of the Sigma 150-600C being front heavy, I currently use the Sigma 60-600 Sports & that is super heavy to handhold. I guess after 6 years I have just mastered it; or learnt to live with it. No I don’t have a 100% keeper rate, but who does? I’m looking forward to getting the RF native glass & doing away with the adaptor, & a 100-500 will be my first RF glass purchase. Thanks Phil. Keep on keeping on buddy! Best, Nick
Thanks, Nick. Another option for you might be a used 500 f4 prime? I don't know what they cost and I've never used one myself but I've seen many great results from others that do. I think you might know a couple of people that use that combo?
@@wildphil I have used a 500F4L Mk1, & to be honest apart from the obvious 100m shortfall in terms of focal length; I didn’t see any better from it against my 400F4 DO. The Mk2 500F4L is supposedly much sharper, but they’re still fetching £4k & upwards for a good one. If I’m spending that kind of dollar, I’m gonna be buying RF glass. Thanks for the suggestion though mate. Best, Nick
@@wildphil The F4 DO IS USM isn’t technically a ‘prime’ as in not labelled as an L lens - but it should be in my opinion! It’s 16 years old & blows my Signa 60-600 away easily! The ‘DO’ bit means Diffractive Optics
Liked your video and presentation. I will need to see again the remaining. I am interested in understanding the difference between R7 and R6 Mark2. Furthermore, I intend to switch from Nikon. R6 and R7 remain a confusion and waiting for R7Mark2. Besides, 200-800 I won't buy.
Glad you found it useful. I only have the R6 mk1 so I can't give you a comparison vs the Mk2 but I suspect the R6Mk2 will be better, certainly with the buffer anyway and better in low light. The R7 (which I also own) gives you extra reach, a lot at 1.6x but at the compromise of a small buffer, worse low light performance and and worse focusssing than the R6.
The plastic trays inside the big box keep the small box both suspended in air and secure within the big box. It's probably as safe to transport, and perhaps safer, than bubble wrap.
Hi there. Thanks for your comment. I'm keeping both lenses. I wouldn't say the 200-800 is an upgrade from the 100-500 - it has more reach, but within their own rights the 100-500 is a better lens in my opinion. The 200-800 still performs very well however.
The 100-500 SHOULD be the better lens! It's an L Series lens and costs almost $1,000.00 more! Having said that, I have the 200-800 and man that reach is nice, all with no teleconverter to put on and take off. It's pretty darn sharp and only a third stop slower at 500. It works incredibly well hand held. The weight is very reasonable. But yeah, Canon has clearly stated that it is not an L lens. I'm not going to get what I've been getting with the 200-800 with a 100-500, not even with a 1.4.
So what I Gather from your experience.. on the video. The 100-500 would be best paired with the R7 and the 200-800 with a full-frame...? Please let me know your opinion.. I own the r7.. and don't want to over spend with a lens I won't like. Thx
Unfortunately I cant give you a perpect answer without knowing tour usage, location and ofher factors. All lenses in my experience focus slower and miss more shots on the crop sensor R7 vs the full frame cameras. You'll still take great shots on the R7 with both lenses but I think you're more likely to get more keepers on the 100-500 vs the 200-800 but of course you sacrifice the reach. If you are using the 200-800 on the R7 with static or slow moving subjects, you probably won't have too many issues - it's faster moving subjects that present more of a challenge. Hope this helps 👍
@wildphil Thank you sir for your quick response. I am nowhere near being a pro. I would describe myself as a hobbyist/enthusiast.. I currently own. - 18-35mm f1.8 sigma (all around) - Canon Nifty 50 f1.8 (portrait) - Tamron SP70-300 f4-5.6 (wildlife, sport, event,) What I have works well for me but.. but I've outgrown the zoom..
I was thinking with the 100-500 and the r7 that's an 800mm reach. I think for me that's more than enough.. I think I rather have the better image iq that lens offers.. is there a huge difference between 800mm and 1280mm? I don't think for a non pro. Such as I that reach is needed.. but then is the price of the 100-500 worth it compared to a 150-600mm sigma contemporary.. it's worth it to me if the image iq is night and day.. what are your thoughts on this..
I don't have those camera bodies to to test this, but as the R6 and R7 were the same I would hypothesise not. But I don't think the noise is a deal breaker unless you are taking photos in a super stealthy environment.
@@wildphilthank you for your quick reply I am waiting to buy R5II next year if it is not coming soon I am planning to buy R5. Currently I am using eos R. I am wondering full frame camera with low light camera capabilities could resolve this. I like 100-500 but with teleconverter price might be double in that scenario.
Both lenses are gold, there are no bad choices. You may not struggle with low light conditions depending on the amount of sunny days you have. In the UK, we get a lot of grey rainy days
Even though I have the R6 and R7 (R6 for landscape and R7 for wildlife) after seeing this I am leaning towards the 100-500. Still out of my price range ATM as 100-500 is $4100AUD(sale) v 200-800 $3100(sale). The Sigma 150-600 will do for now.
Thanks, Tony. I have the Sigma too. I've done a video in the same format as this comparing the Sigma 150-600mm to the 100-500 if it helps, youll find it in my gear reveiws area on the channel homepage. Just to say the Sigma is still an awesome value proposition in opinion, I think it's probably one of the the best bang for buck lenses out there.
The statement about f stops and amount of background in focus is wrong. The F9 on full frame is still F9 on crop sensor. The idea of f-stop equivalent is for filling entire frame on both sensors - that means using longer focal length on full frame and that means increasing magnification and that means reducing depth of field. In order to bring that depth of field to the size it has on crop sensor the lens has to be stopped down 1.6 times just as the focal length was increased 1.6 times. It is easiest to remember that depth of field depends only on magnification and aperture. If the lens is set at the same focal length and f-stop on full frame and crop sensor then it will produce exactly the same image - it can not be any other way because the lenses in the lens and aperture blades are in exactly the same position. All the sensor can do is to crop larger or smaller part of that image.
@@StevenHadfield-oo4ql It renders the same image no matter the sensor size. Could you give more detailed description of what you mean because there is probably some misunderstanding here.
Hi both. I may not have articulated it the best but what I mean is with the F stop set the same on both cameras, the full frame sensor renders the image with better subject separation (slightly more blurry background) than the crop sensor. I agree that the same f stop number on both cameras will stop down the blads inside the lens to the same aperture, its how the sensors render the image that are different.
@@wildphil Both sensors will get the same image if the focal length and aperture are the same. The smaller sensor's image will be a crop of the larger sensor's image and that's all. Nothing will be more blurred, no change in depth of field or anything else. Sensor doesn't create an image, it only registers what the lens provides. Maybe you mean that a lower resolution crop from a larger image will be more blurry than a higher resolution image from smaller sensor?
I wish I had seen this review before I bought this lens for my R7. I'm seeing exactly what you stated, the focus is just slightly off all to regularly. Quite disappointed with it.
Hi Aidan. Don't despair, you can still get epic shots with the R7! It's just not as snappy and accurate on focus as with a full frame camera that's all. If you have relatively static subject your keeper rates should be much better 👍
at 26:30 talking about aperture and iso you made a few mistakes. your dof with apsc is only greater than ff if you back up to get the same framing as ff. with wildlife this doesnt really apply. if you have a ff camera with 200-800 at 800mm f9 and i have a r7 with 200-800 at 800mm f9 and we are both shooting the same subject thats lets say 100 feet away then the dof on the r7 image is actually less than the ff image. in that scenario using a calculator the ff image dof woulkd be 2' 6" and the r7 image would be 1' 6.5". If I backed up another 30 feet to match your framing then my dof would be equivalent to f14. or if i zoomed out the r7 to 500mm and f8 on 200-800 to match the framing of 800mm on ff camera itd also work out to have a greater dof second mistake was the apsc body is not "gathering less light so youll need a higher iso" if both are shooting at 800mm f9 and same shutter speed your iso will be identical. The difference is that the noise on the ff camera will be equivalent to around a stop less than the apsc. so if your iso comes out to 6400 on ff camera then itll look like similar noise level to the apsc image at 3200 iso. However if you crop the ff image to apsc fov then you essentially add back a stop of noise
Hi TheMrNeffels. Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points there. There's quite a long thread on this subject buried in these comments somewhere - feel free to join in if you can find the thread.
@@wildphil I think I see the one you mean but all you really said was a repeat of the video and that you agree to disagree. I fully agree that everyone should use the camera they like to take the images they like but when you're making a video to help people decide between gear I think you do need to get the facts right. I'm also not sure what you disagree with. The dof thing can be checked on any dof calculator. The iso thing is a quick Google search. I had an r3 the past week from canon to try out. I did a noise and cropping test where I had a stuffed raccoon about 50 feet away and then took photos at 500mm f7.1 on r7 and r3 from same spot. Both camera on auto iso selected the same iso each time when framing was kept consistent and images were identical in exposure. With FF it is fairly common that it may select a lower iso because of the wider fov often getting more of the brighter sky in frame. So maybe that is what you are thinking of. If you expose based on the subject with spot metering or your scene is all consistent though the iso will be the same. The difference being a FF camera like an r3 will have 1 1/3 stop better noise performance. Meaning if you needed to you could raise your iso a stop and a third before your image was as noisy as the crop image. Which if other settings are the same would give you a brighter image too. Which can be useful for wildlife. Your crop sensor camera isn't going to need or use a higher iso value to get same exposure as FF though. The reason I prefer aps-c for wildlife is once you crop the FF image to same fov as aps-c the FF image is also blowing up the noise so you lose the noise advantage and have way less mp. So if you're often shooting at your max focal length and needing to crop aps-c image will provide more detail. For the dof thing in my iso test there was a line of trees a hundred yards behind the raccoon. At 500mm f7.1 with both cameras the r3 did not blow or render the trees out the trees more. It was the same with all the images of wildlife I took over the time I had the r3 too. I'd swap back and forth between cameras and when shooting from the same spot the r3 never had a shallower dof than the R7. Just a much wider fov. If I got closer with the r3 so the fov matched the R7 fov from the 10 feet further back or whatever then the r3 had a dof advantage. Overall it's a good video. I just think that one part you either have a slight misunderstanding or explained it a bit wrong
Why would you expect a bag with this lens? It’s less than $2k USD. Putting a bag in the box that no one would just would just drive the price up, or cut into their ability to make a profit. We need Canon to be profitable to get them to make products like this! The hood is something that almost everyone would use, which is not true for the budget lenses that Canon sells. Again, Canon has done this the right way and have brought value to their customers.
Hi Anthony. In the UK, it's a lot more at 2300 GBP. In fact my 100-500 cost me only 200 more - both new from authorised dealers. I've noticed the USD pricing is more favourable than we get over here.
Interesting review, But 2 questions for you, Why does every one review the 100 - 500 v 200 - 800, both lens's are over 2 grand EACH, Why has no one tested the Sigma 150 600 against the the 200 - 800? The sigma is well sub £1k, in fact around £1500 cheaper. pair with a tele 1.4, you have same weight, longer reach ( 820) and faster lens. We are not talking professional photographers earning their living on the images, but it is clearly targeted at the amateur photographer, I have the Sigma, and the R7, I don't see any need to upgrade my camera to full frame, but I am wondering about the 200 - 800 lens, but I can't see any reason to spend over £2k when I am happy with the Sigma. And since every one is shying away from comparing them, there has to be reason, i.e., no gain.
Hi Ron. Tha ks for your comment. I do have the Sigma Contemporary, too, actually. I've already covered it vs the 100-500 on my chanel so I didn't feel the need to do so again (and time too, these reviews take me an age to make and edit). The Sigma is a great lens for the money however I'll say that with a 1.4x converter on it the performance of the RF lenses are night and day better for image quality and speed of course. Both RF lenses are sharper than the Sigma- but that doesn't make the Sigma bad. I think it delivers great value for its cost and still produces great photos.
Thanks Phil, have not found that video, will dig deeper, I expect the rf lens to be better as they are adequate for each other and the full benefits can't be seen if not utilising all the rf benefits and features, but I am getting g great shots with the sigma and try not to use the tele unless really needed. You say your video is against the 100 500, so again the 200 800 is missing, why buy the 100 500 whenthe sigma canbe so good? so I guess what your saying is spend the 2.4k on the 200 800 😢
I'd rather have the RF200-800mm and have an R7 and R5/R6 cause it is usable on both depending on external factors than having a 100-500mm and only usable on R7 as for full frame it is too wide. TC's are a big no for me but everyone to his own.
Hi Phil, Some corrections: 1. using a lens on a APS-C crop body doesn't change the f stop...smaller pixel sizes do mean more DOF though...this is why a large super tele prime on a FF body is desirable for birding photography. 2. When you turn IS off on a Canon lens (EF or RF, doesn't matter), IBIS is turned off in the body. There is no way to have IBIS on when IS is off. The menu setting is in fact, disabled as soon as you turn IS off on your lens. My 1st gen EF 500f4 prime makes a racket when IS Is turned on btw. A mate who also had the same lens, reported the same issue too. Newer generations have quieter IS. 3. AF performance and speed is typically linked to sensor read out speed. The R7 has a very slow 37ms readout speed and this is the real cause of it's well, poor AF. Yes, larger pixels can and does help (more light for the DPAF functionality to detect contrast). And yes, the dual motors in the RF100-500 will also help somewhat. Many thanks for the excellent review. I am currently saving to upgrade to a EF600f4 II prime, but will grab the RF200-800 in 4 or 5 years (prime is my priority). In fact, I will probably grab the 600 first, then a used mark 1 R5, and then the RF200-800.
Hi Dave Thanks for comments. I don't think smaller pixel sizes affect the depth of field, but instead it's the overall sensor size rather than the size of each individal pixel - that's what I belive anyway. Thanks for the info on points 2 and 3. Certainly for point 2, I concur with the new RF lenses on the option for IBIS in the menu is not there, yet when I adapt an old EF 50mm, the IBIS options then appear in the menu 👍 I've not yet had the pleasure of using one of the big F4 primes that you're looking to get - maybe one day! - wishing you the bets of luck with it.
@@wildphil EF lenses behave the same way as RF lenses with regards to IS/IBIS. My nifty 50 doesn't have IS. If a lens doesn't have IS, I think you can turn on IBIS. Yes, my apologies. You are correct, it's sensor size and not pixel size that affect apparent DOF. The big f4 primes are heavy, but so worth it. They are sharper than the RF100-500, even my old mark 1 500f4 (and the 2nd gen are a bit sharper than the mark 1 units). My 500f4 is razor sharp. I sometimes joke that it's that sharp, I cut myself when I pick it up. Just be aware that only the 1 series, R3 and R1 have enough current via batteries to power both AF motors in the mark 2 lenses. A R5 and R5II will lack the current and ONLY drive 1 of the AF motors. Also, go with the mark 3 TC. It is optically sharper than the mark 1 & 2 TCs, plus weather sealed and has a AF chip to better communicate and perform AF functions with the mark 2 super tele primes.
I subscribed and turned 999 into 1k, I deserve a prize 🏆 🤣🤣🤣 PS. Thank you for reviewing these to lens, I already own R5 and sigma 50-500 and works well but sigma 1.4 teleconverter does not work with my sigma 50-500 and was looking for a bit more reach for birding and moon photos and think I may have to sell another kidney for the canon 200-800 🤣🥳🥳
I’d give you two 100-500’s for one 200-800….. straight across. The 100-500 is all but worthless to me. Not long enough about 95% of the time. And it sucks (being barely contractable) with TC’s. If you shoot big stuff, or larger BIF, Hawks, Eagles and such, the 100-500 might be okay, but for being no faster than it is, I still believe it’s way overpriced. I have rented both the 100-500 (and it did nothing for me) and the 200-800, and I absolutely loved it. I’d absolutely be using it now, if Canon would ever get their chit together and make enough of them to catch up ☹️ They will probably finally be available right at the same time they announce the R7 Mk II, and then I will be really torn. I love / hate. MyR7’s, but they really need some upgrades badly. Still better than my R5 was (for my purposes) but it could be SO much better…. FF sucks for my purposes.
Hi there. I can only speak for my own experience but I would say it's a bad lens at all. I do agree it is better suited to full frame, but I've till hav great shots with it on an APSC sensor.
Many people appreciate the unboxing. But for those that don't, that's why the video has chapters so you can skip ahead to the sections you might find relevant. It's not a lot of effort to drag the slider past the unboxing.
Thanks, Gary. Ha, it's the internet- you have to be prepared for any and all types of comments! I don't mind it if people disagree with me or don't like my reviews or even if they voice it, provided it's done with respect and ideally some constructive feedback if people aren't a fan so I know how to improve. On the plus side even the bad comments do help bump up the algorithm!
It would be useful if you gace your reasons for not liking it.. too technical, not technical enough, style content etc etc - I thought it was a good review and I have watched several. In the end, I have a 1-5 and although I pre-ordered the 2-8 I cancelled it, for the reasons given in this review.. Well done Gary..
@@wildphil Hello Phil , I did get my 200 - 800 . I've got mixed emotions about it , in some ways it works good in some ways it doesn't , the image quality between 600 mm and 800 mm is not very good , and I bought the 1.4 X teleconverter with it as well , BUT I DEFINITELY will NOT use it with this lens , and for doing birds in flight it's just too slow in focusing . The old but trusted Canon 400 F 5.6 is 10 times better than the 200 - 800 for Birds in flight . I will keep the 200 - 800 for a travel lens to use on birding trips that will be the main purpose of it .
Hi Gary. Have you tried contacting Canon? I've not noticed any image problems on my copy but that said if you decided to move the lens on, right now you probably wouldn't have too much difficulty selling it as its out of stock everywhere. I'm not surprised an f5.6 lens out perofrms it for birds in flight, that's quite a lot more light.
Sorry for the late reply, it has been a tough week! I'm not really a livestream kinda guy but I really do appreciate the offer and invite. Good luck with the show 👍
Awesome review, thanks. I use my R7 with the RF 100-500 for birding, occasionally adding the 1.4x TC for extra reach. I was tempted by the 200-800, but you've persuade me to save my money. Lovely photos, thanks for sharing.
You're welcome 👍
Just a quick comment about your comment on packaging. Having worked at a freight company unloading and loading packages, believe me you do want that extra box for extra protection. Boxes do get thrown around and dropped quite often. Cheers. Now for the rest of the vid as I own the R6 and R7 as well with the Sigma 150-600.
Thank you. I'll take your advice on that one! I was wondering about bubble wrap in the smaller box but that said from an eco perspective, it's probably worse than more cardboard and what they have now.
I have an R5 and use both lens for wildlife photography. i agree with you the 100-500mm it is a better choice! Nice video!
Thanks for your comment. It's definitely easier to use and lighter to carry too! 👍
Just got round to seeing this video. what a brilliant review of all aspects of both lenses. This took time and effort and is appreciated, well done!!
Thank you very much for your kind words, Kez. Much appreciated 👍
I've used the 100-500 and sold it to buy the RF 200-800. On the R5 and the R6MKII, now on the R7. I need the range and so the answer for me is 200-800. But everyone has to look what he needs.
Well, yep. If you need range, it doesn't get much better than this for the price of this lens!
Hey Phil,
Really enjoyed that mate, as you know I’ve got the 1-5 and love it as my go to lens, light quick and pretty good in low light, and for hand held BIF’s dam good!
Used the 2-8 on an R5 over the winter, nice and good AF in good light, bit on the weighty side but all in all a great lens and not a bad price! Will probably get one when I’m running tours in Costa Rica next year, just don’t tell the wife 😝👍.
Nice work buddy, and about that packaging 😅😅😅. Cheers Rich 👍
Thanks, mate. Yeah, the packaging sure got a lot of comments! If you do get it, do so from the states if you can. I worked out I could probably get a return flight to New York on deal, walk into a shop and buy the lens, fly back home and still have change in my pocket vs buying it in the UK! If I'm doing any long distance hiking and need one lens I still prefer the 1-5 with a teleconverter in the bag due to size, weight and more nimble to handhold.
Good in Low Light @f 7.1
@@Mr09260 yeah! Remarkably it’s is, Who would have thought! 👍
I have both these lenses & both the same camera bodies - I can 100% agree with you on your opinion on the R7, the R6 and the 200-800. I went to Colombia in the rainforest took around 9k photos on each camera body and very few of the R7 were in proper focus, most were soft - whereas on the R6 - the photos were mostly in focus, way better in low light and was my weapon of choice...
Glad you found the video helpful. Let's hope for an improved R7 Mk2 in the future, eh?
That was a great review. I do not have a canon. But helping a friend shop. And it was full of useful information. Thank you.
Thanks, David. Glad you found it helpful 👍
I really prefer the RolanPro covers for lenses. I have one on my 100-500mm and 200-800mm. The LensCoat neoprene covers fray at the edges in a year. This doesn't happen with RolanPro.
The noise you're hearing, is the lens constantly trying to auto-focus? I have Continuous AF turned off in my camera settings. I use the R5. I sold my R7 but even when I had it, Continuous AF was turned off. I only recently got my 200-800mm. I've only had one day out with it. I didn't notice that sound you're hearing but will pay closer attention next time.
Great review and comparison between the lenses. Thank you!!!
Hi Cath. Thanks very much for the tip on RolandPro. I've since bought a Lenscoat one but I'm not entirely happy with the for for the 200-800 so I'll also look up Roland Pro. I did try turing off continous AF but it didn't make difference. Cracking suggestion, though, it was well worth a try.
@@wildphil I hear that noise as well with the R5, and I disabled continuous AF long ago because it's mainly a battery waster. The noise from my 200-800 is pretty low level which I don't notice while shooting. but even when IS and/or AF are disabled you hear it is long as the camera doesn't fall asleep.
So far I never encountered someone putting a finger on exactly what's going on in there, but my only concern about it is regarding potential impact on battery life ..
Nice review. What I would like to see is the comparison of Canon r7+100-500 to Canon r6+200-800 (apsc+better optics to full frame+reach).
Thank you. That's an interesting suggestion and I may do another video in the future on it.
Great review other than your comments on the packaging.
I have R6mkII, R7, RF 100-500mm, 1,4x extender and RF 800mm f/11. R7 in good light + 800mm is great also for fast flying eiders and ducks.
Of particular value to me was you tests of image quality of the 200-800mm compared with the L lens + extender.
I'll likely in a year upgrade my 800mm to 200-800mm in spite of the higher weight. Faster focusing, much lower close-up distance, advantage of other than 800mm focal range. For use primarily with my R7.
I have R7, R6mk2, 100-500 & 200-800 & 800F11. My 800F11 has been a great lens but I was constantly having opportunies where a bird landed within 15 feet of me and I couldn't get the pic. The 100-500 is an amazing lens but then I lost the reach of the 800F11. I tried the 1.4 tele on it and it basically was the same performance (once cropped in) as the 800F11. Then I got the 200-800 and for me its the most versatile. It takes great pics on both bodies and compared to the 100-500 its still very close in quality. So in summary if you can fill the frame with the 100-500 then its the best lens but when you need the range the 200-800 is best lens with little sacrafice. I will say F10 on the 200-800 worked better than F9 as far as helping soft focus issues with the R7.
Thanks for your comment. For me a key advantage of the zoom is I find it easier to locate subjects in the viewfinder because I can zoom out to see them, aquire focus, and zoom back in again.
Great review. Thank you for all your work in compiling this.
My pleasure!
Thanks for the review Phil. What would you say is the range of distances between you and your subject using the various focal lengths of the 200-800?
Tough one. Especially since I'm relying on memory to guage it. As a ball park, I'd estimate 40 metres?
Dear Phil: The box inside a box packaging is very important to protect the lens. Those plastic trays suspend the lens and absorb shock. Also. there is nothing but the lens in thin plastic in the inner box. I’m surprised you would criticize Canon who ships many lenses around the world.
Hmm... I was thinking about a halfway larger inner box with more protective bubble wrap, like the older days. But that said, maybe it's less eco-friendly than the extra cardboard we have now. I get what they are trying to do in terms of protection.
This is easily the best comparison I have seen. Amazing job and thank you for taking the time to make this video sharing your knowledge!
Thanks for your kind words, Jeff. I'm glad you found it useful 👍
Thank you, what a great comparison that answered all my questions!
Thanks very much. Glad you found it helpful 👍
The 100-500 is so portable. I was actually thinking of getting a 600 f4 but realized the best lens in the world is worthless if you don’t have it with you. I was stunned at how sharp it is and I have the 300 2.8 and the RF 100-300 2.8 and the EF 100-400 mark II. If the 200-800 is competitive with the 100-500…that is impressive for the price point. Having watched your video and given my experience I would again get the 100-500 and the 1.4 TC. Also your R7 experience matches mine. Everything works better on my R6…but sometimes you just need the APS/C.
Thank you, completely agree. It's an old saying about the best camera is the one with you, but it's so true!
Great video. I have the 100-500 and would probably have gone 200-800 if both had been available when I was buying. It's hard not to envy that Sony 200-600.
Thank you. I think 600 is a good sweetspot!
Hi Phil, thanks for putting this much work in the comparison ! Mostly loved your short eared owls ! My best encounter with them was while still shooting a 70D, and so far they've escaped my 100-500 and 200-800 🙈
Thanks to a promotion, I've actually paid exactly the same for both these white zooms and I find them pretty complementary. Earlier I popped the 1.4x on the 100-500 for nearly 50% of the time, but the 420-700 wasn't too practical and it was best to stop down for optimal IQ. Now I have both I basically grab the 200-800 whenever I used add the extender in the past. The 100-500 is more agile and has a closer MFD, but the 200-800 generates at the long end clearly more bokeh.
Hi Werner. Thanks for you reply. I would 100% agree that if you can, use the 200-800mm instead of the 100-500 if you are using a 1.4x teleconverter. The focussing is not quite a good, bu the extra light is welcome along with the extra reachand also the ability to zoom back to 200mm. That said, with the 100-500 I still find this a versitile combination if I need to be mobile and space and weight are and issue with my camera bag, or if I'm hiking for wildlife.
@@wildphil Oh yes, back in July we visited the puffin Island Lunga in Scotland. First I took some bokeh shots at 800/9 of static puffins, and then most of the time I tried puffins in flight with the 100-500.
I wouldn't wanna miss both of these lenses 😀
Phil you did a fantastic review here I loved how you did it .
There are so many people are comparing these 2 lenses , I just bought the 200 - 800 I haven't even pulled it out of the box yet , I really wish Tamron and Sigma would come up with their own RF lenses in this focal length I think they would be very good options .
Thanks for your kinds words. Totally with you on Tamron and Sigma, I'd love it if Canon opened up the mount and those two manufacturers could put something out there. I still have the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and it still gets amazing shots even when adapted on to the RF mount cameras..
@@wildphil Phil my Tamron 150 to 600 is not doing very good adapted meaning on the R mount cameras as I have the R3
and R7 with these camera's they just simply won't auto focus very good at all with those 2 bodies but yet they auto focus beautifully with my 1DX and my 7D Mk II .
Similar with the Sigma, Gary. It adapts well to the RF bodies but it still focuses better on the (ful frame) DSLRs, less pulsing.
Outdoor photography gear have a neoprene lens cover for the 200-800 lens. As a bonus they're made in the UK and are much higher quality than the lenscoat brand as well as being cheaper!
Awesome, thank you very much, Justin. You're the 2nd person to recommend these people so I'll definitely take a look. Since filming I did purchase a lenscoat cover and whilst I was very happy with the 100-500, the fit on this one seems a bit more loose. Great to hear there's a UK made option too ! 👍👍
You are the first UA-cam reviewer to mention the noise from the RF 200-800. Jan Wegener and Scott West (Wild Alaska) both use this lens frequently for birding and neither noted any noise. Is it perhaps you are just very sensitive to it? It would be helpful to demonstrate the noise by holding the camera and lens up to your mic.
The biggest problem with putting a teleconverter on the 100-500 is losing focal length at the short end. You have to extend the lens to 300mm just to mount the converter, so you end up with a 420-700mm zoom. If the subject moves towards you, you can find yourself too close to it. The 200-800 is both 100mm longer at the long end and shorter at the short end, while being a 1/3 stop faster at the long end. The 200-800 is thus much more versatile.
Thanks for your detailed comments there, John. I did wonder about doing a video on the noise, but I'm not sure I'll get the time soon. What I can say is, since filiming, the 100-500 makes the same noise, but 200-800 is noticeably louder. Why? I don't know. Is just my particular copy of the lens? Again, I don't know, unfortunately. It's not a deal breaker and I only hear it outside when I am miles away from any roads or traffic and there is true silence but as I hadn't noticed it before I felt I should mention it.
Agree with your point on the focal length and aperture on the 200-800 vs 100-500 and 1.4 extender. If you need to walk many miles to a location the weight and extra size in the bag is noticeable, however, and for stalking/walking or handheld use the 100-500 (for me) is less off-putting wildlife as its a smaller footprint to swing around.
@@wildphil thanks, and fair points for you. I have the 100-500 and have never noticed any noise during still or video shooting. OTOH I'm 70 and maybe I've lost a little high-end hearing. 😉😂
@@JohnDrummondPhoto I woulnd't let it put you off buying the lens if you are considering it, John. I'd estimate in 80% of use cases outside I won't hear it - it's only when I'm in those super quiet locations miles from anywhere and there is no ambinet noise from traffic or wildlife - by that I mean those creepy locations where there is literally no sound at all!
I'm very happy with the 100-500. It's outright compact and lightweight considering it's reach. The images I've taken with it so far amaze me every time with their sharpness, detail, and color when editing them. The 200-800 is simply too large for my backpack, and I wouldn't want to travel with it.
Thanks for your comment. Yeah, it's definately a lot more weighty!
My 200-800 shipped today! Should have it on Thursday! Now I can do my own testing. also, I had been using my r7 with the 100-500 but now I can use the r5 instead, giving me more pixels per duck at the same focal length, so the r7+100-500 no long has an advantage. Now, I know a professional bird photographer in FL who claims the r7+200-800 works great in good light but you need to use a high shutter speed. Unlike you in the UK, we have many sunny days here in SE USA. We shall see!😊
Congratulations on your new purchase! It's a good lens and I'm sure it'll make a great addition to your collection, especially if you're using it in the sunshine state! 👍
Don't we typically use high shutter speeds when shooting birds anyway?
@@alansach8437 most of the time, but not always. Sometimes I shoot perched birds at low shuttler speeds. And even in low light.
Nice job videoing the kestrel in a dive to catch that prey!
Thanks. Lucky I had the R6, and lady luck on my side that time!
I agree with you on the focusing of the r7 vs a full frame camera like the r6. i have noticed this several times myself. For some reason that crop sensor just doesn’t “see” as well as its full frame cousins.
Nice job videoing the kestrel in a dive to catch that prey!
Let's hope the mk2 is better if and when it gets released!
And I’d be the first one to admit that. But if you always need more reach than you can get with a FF camera, you really don’t have much choice. My R5 probably focused a little better than my R7’s, but I was constantly doing 100% crops, and sometimes that still wasn’t enough.
My R7’s definitely miss a lot of shots, but rarely will I shoot in bursts and not get 1 or 2 that are tack sharp. And I only need 1.
Btw, I’m “not” shooting stuff a long ways away. I typically shoot small birds from 22-30 ft.
brilliant review mate well done
Thanks, Wayne 👍
im your 500th sub 🥳🥳
Thank you very much. I can't believe this video has been so popular and I've got to 500 subs. Thank you very much for becoming my 500th! 👌👍
I use the canon r7 with the rf100-500 and have had similar experiences with the camera. It's good for the price, but the focus isn't always where you want it to be. I have ordered the R5 Mark II and will see whether the rf100-500 and, if necessary, the crop mode of the R5 Mark II are enough for me or whether I will have to buy more focal length. As I already own the 1.4 extender, I can also work with it.
Fingers crossed for a better R7 mkii soon!
Hi Phil great review l have the R7 with the 100-500 at the moment l am going to get the R5 mark ii but l am bit worried about the reach with R5 and the 100 - 500 as l do birds do you think it will ok as it’s got 45 mp thanks Keith
Hi Keith. I've used the R6 original with the 100-500 and in the field (I mean a big wide open field like Salibsury Plain in the UK) I found it a bit short on full frame. But that said I didn't have the same cropping ability as you do on the R5. If you pair it with a teleconverter I think it'll be fine - it'll never beat the lower F4 primes but it's light and very verisitle. In fact as I write this right now I'm on a family trip to Scotland, I'm hoping to squeeze some wildlife photography in but I need something compact and lightweight for walkng. If it helps I chose the R6 with 100-500mm and 1.4x teleconverter. I left the 200-800mm at home.
Thanks - I like the style of your review.
Thanks, Edward. I appreciate your kind words 👍
Nicely done.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. 👍
I appreciate that canon use 2 boxes which means to me they care about keeping this lens secure while in transit. The way boxes give the lens more protection for shipping through the awful Parcel Force, DPS, model, third party amazon couriers who do not give a rats arse about damaging customers parcels.
Fair point. Lots of others here agree with you.
I am just amazed! how did you recover the picture at 25:44? Could you share the software used?
Hi Jimmy. I ran the RAW image through DXO Pure Raw4 (there is a free trial for 2 weeks link in this description) as it does apply some small sharpening by default. The rest was just Adobe Lightroom editing using the sharpening tools it has.
Thanks for the video. I just got this lens for my R5 and boy is it a beast compared to my 100-500. I have some neck and shoulder issues but never had an issue with the 100-500 but this lens is a whole different story lol def need a tripod for this one.
Hi Michael. I think you can handhold it, but for long term shooting a tripod or beanbag would be ideal in my opinion.
@@wildphil you can definitely hand hold for a few shots but for anything your going to be holding it for a while a tripod is definitely a must ., for me at last 😄 🤣
The 200-800 is on backorder everywhere but it'll be worth the wait lol
Thanks fr your comment. I think so, yes.
Hi that a real complete review👏👏👏 even if I’m not a Canon shooter. You Canon users are lucky as you can adapt old big prime to RF mount and it seems to works quite well. The price of both lens match the price of an 500mmf4 which with the r7 and r6 is solid option for low light cause of the aperture. What do you think?
Thanks, Dan. I don't have experience of an F4 prime myself but from I've seen many great results from others that do, and with the R7 too. I reckon what you have suggested is likely to be a solid option and a good choice for low light and I suspect you're right, the R7 would likely perform much better too 👍
Thanks for this review! Since the 200-800 is not available nowadays and since the 100-500 is also pretty useful for landscape photography, I am going for the latter. (availability being prime concern). Additional teleconferters do make it a costly affair though. 😢
Yeah, I'd heard the lens was out of stock from quite a few people. The 100-500 is still a great lens though and works very well with the teleconverter but yes, as you say, there are additional costs.
Hi Phil were did you buy your camouflage gear
Hi Tony. It's made by a company called Jack Pyke and you can buy it on amazon (affiliate link) here: amzn.to/4cqwmgT - they produce jackets and trousers to match. If you are in the UK you can also buy it at Go Outdoors. I also have other camo items linked in the description of this video if it helps.
What is the camo cover you have on the 200-800mm?
Hi Tom. It's from Lenscoat. I have a review on a similar cover for the 100-500 lens cover here: ua-cam.com/video/QQ-SSXk_zSw/v-deo.html - It could just be my own individual copy of the cover but I feel the one for the 100-500 is better made even though the materials are the same. Pattern is Realtree Max5 on both.
Nice review. I waited a long time before I bought the RF200-800. The weight, lack of removal tripod foot and the light needed for it to work well vs my RF100-500.
I have only had the 200-800 for a few weeks but my concerns were justified. What I like it not having to put a teleconverter on it and the problems with the RF100-500 and a teleconverter. If the teleconverter worked as it should with the RF100-500 I never would have gotten the RF200-800. On a bright day and in open areas such as plains where you can't get close, this is a great lens. For a quick light lens and shorter distances then the RF100-500 is the best. I have not tried the 1.4 or 2X converters on the RF200-800 yet. I. know the 1.4 works well as I have seen lots of pics on UA-cam. If money is not a problem or you are a professional photographer, then the RF200-800 is something to have. If not. then deal wit the tele converts and the RF100-500 when the extra reach is needed.
Thanks, Dan. Yeah, my conclusions pretty much mirror yours. You'd be surprised at how well the 1.4x extender works on the 200-800 but the biggest issue is the magnification of haze or atmospherics.
Hi...
I shoot the r7... I don't know which lens to pick.
This 200-800 or the 100- 500..
I will be replacing my current and old tamrom 70-300 with the rf 70-200mm 2.8..soon but after that lens ill need
extreme zoom.. I don't know what I should get.. the r7 isnt as good in low light as its not a lower pix full frame .. which would you use.. please, please advise..
I really value your advice..
i have the ef 400mm L 5.6 with converter , would you get the 100-500mm or the 200-800mm , i have just bought the R5 II
Tough one as it's down to personal choice. Also, I've never used the EF 400mm but if you already have that lens I'd be inclined to go for the longer 200-800mm so that you have a greater range of focal lengths covered, assuming it's for wildlife photography. Everyne's own needs a different but I think that's probably the way I'd go.
Nice honest review 👍
Your kind words are very much appreciated, thank you 👍
As far as the noise in the lens being always on try shutting off Continuous Auto Focus in the focusing menu which keeps the lens continually focusing even when not pressing any buttons and by default keeps the image stabilizer going also continuously
Thanks, James. This is a great piece of advice. I will try this tomorrow and revert back with the results! 👍
Thanks for the great suggestion, it was well worth a try, but sadly didn't do the trick. Great thinking, though, I thought you might have solved it with that idea. Maybe I've just got a noisy one!
Yea... problem about these long lenses are their size and weight really matters. I wont mention price because if you can afford you can if not save up and you could. But weight and size of it is something we have no control of. And it really matter because it affects how you can bring it out to use it ornot... The experience out in the field.. and what bag or tripod you need to use.. (take into account of bringing the gear on a airplane as well) etc etc..
The same problem with those huge long prime.. 1 may be able to afford but to bring it out .. is really a concern. The 100-500 suddenly look so small beside the 200-800.
Yes, size and weight between those two lenses is definately something to consider, particularly if you do a lot of hiking to locations and you have to allow space for other stuff and supplies in your bag etc. I recently hiked 8 miles to and from a location and decided to opt for the 100-500 simply based on size and weight alone.
From my personal test the Canon R5 + 200/800 wins in terms of sharpness at maximum focal length compared to the 100/500.
Interesting! For me it's too close to call, but maybe with your R5 and higher megapixels, it shows the difference more.
Nice review. You covered a lot of info. I hope you can make some more videos comparing that equipment you have. Take care.
Thank you! 👍. There's a gear review playlist on my channel homepage, but I usually do more vlog based stuff. I have a few others planned in the next few months.
I've used both on the R7. If you're only shooting aviation and smaller birds at closer ranges, the 100-500 should be your only consideration. On a 1.6x crop, the 200-800 is stupidly long and you get issues with focus hunting and softness on the long end
Can't say I've noticed any softness on my particular copy of the lens, but the focussing is definately noticeably worse on a crop sensor cameras vs full frame.
Hi Phil,
A genuinely great comparison video & very relevant to myself having recently made the switch to an RF mount body (R6ii) & still currently using adapted EF glass. I was seriously considering the 200-800 & the 100-500L (sure I would love a 600 F4L - but erm… 💰💰💰) & I was always leaning towards the 100-500L with maybe a 1.4x if absolutely necessary. Watching this has really nailed that for me, & later down the line there could be an option to add the 200-800 or indeed Canon may have released something else by that time. Ideally I’d like to see them challenge Nikon’s ‘budget’ 180-600 lens but with a 100-500 & now the 200-800 already in the line up of telephoto zoom lenses - it’s unlikely I guess.
Interesting you mentioned the weight of the Sigma 150-600C being front heavy, I currently use the Sigma 60-600 Sports & that is super heavy to handhold. I guess after 6 years I have just mastered it; or learnt to live with it. No I don’t have a 100% keeper rate, but who does? I’m looking forward to getting the RF native glass & doing away with the adaptor, & a 100-500 will be my first RF glass purchase.
Thanks Phil.
Keep on keeping on buddy!
Best,
Nick
Thanks, Nick. Another option for you might be a used 500 f4 prime? I don't know what they cost and I've never used one myself but I've seen many great results from others that do. I think you might know a couple of people that use that combo?
@@wildphil I have used a 500F4L Mk1, & to be honest apart from the obvious 100m shortfall in terms of focal length; I didn’t see any better from it against my 400F4 DO. The Mk2 500F4L is supposedly much sharper, but they’re still fetching £4k & upwards for a good one. If I’m spending that kind of dollar, I’m gonna be buying RF glass. Thanks for the suggestion though mate.
Best,
Nick
Ah, OK, you've got 1st hand experience already. I've yet to experience an F4 prime, maybe one day!
@@wildphil The F4 DO IS USM isn’t technically a ‘prime’ as in not labelled as an L lens - but it should be in my opinion!
It’s 16 years old & blows my Signa 60-600 away easily! The ‘DO’ bit means Diffractive Optics
Oh! I think I know the one you mean, does it have a green ring instead of a red one?
That packaging is so that the lens is protected if the box takes a knock. I would rather see that than the alternative.
A lot of people on here totally agree with you, Michael.
Awesome so lovely video
Thank you for your kind words.
Liked your video and presentation. I will need to see again the remaining. I am interested in understanding the difference between R7 and R6 Mark2. Furthermore, I intend to switch from Nikon. R6 and R7 remain a confusion and waiting for R7Mark2. Besides, 200-800 I won't buy.
Glad you found it useful. I only have the R6 mk1 so I can't give you a comparison vs the Mk2 but I suspect the R6Mk2 will be better, certainly with the buffer anyway and better in low light. The R7 (which I also own) gives you extra reach, a lot at 1.6x but at the compromise of a small buffer, worse low light performance and and worse focusssing than the R6.
@@wildphil thanks again for giving further hints.
You're welcome. Good luck with the decision 👍
The plastic trays inside the big box keep the small box both suspended in air and secure within the big box. It's probably as safe to transport, and perhaps safer, than bubble wrap.
Fair point, John. It took me a little by surprise as I'm too used to bubble wrap.
My next target 🎯 this Lense
Upgrading? From the 100-500 to the 200-800?
Hi there. Thanks for your comment. I'm keeping both lenses. I wouldn't say the 200-800 is an upgrade from the 100-500 - it has more reach, but within their own rights the 100-500 is a better lens in my opinion. The 200-800 still performs very well however.
The 100-500 SHOULD be the better lens! It's an L Series lens and costs almost $1,000.00 more! Having said that, I have the 200-800 and man that reach is nice, all with no teleconverter to put on and take off. It's pretty darn sharp and only a third stop slower at 500. It works incredibly well hand held. The weight is very reasonable. But yeah, Canon has clearly stated that it is not an L lens. I'm not going to get what I've been getting with the 200-800 with a 100-500, not even with a 1.4.
So what I Gather from your experience.. on the video.
The 100-500 would be best paired with the R7 and the 200-800 with a full-frame...?
Please let me know your opinion.. I own the r7.. and don't want to over spend with a lens I won't like. Thx
with a 40 mp FF camera i would probably never use a crop sensor
Unfortunately I cant give you a perpect answer without knowing tour usage, location and ofher factors. All lenses in my experience focus slower and miss more shots on the crop sensor R7 vs the full frame cameras. You'll still take great shots on the R7 with both lenses but I think you're more likely to get more keepers on the 100-500 vs the 200-800 but of course you sacrifice the reach. If you are using the 200-800 on the R7 with static or slow moving subjects, you probably won't have too many issues - it's faster moving subjects that present more of a challenge. Hope this helps 👍
@wildphil Thank you sir for your quick response.
I am nowhere near being a pro. I would describe myself as a hobbyist/enthusiast.. I currently own.
- 18-35mm f1.8 sigma (all around)
- Canon Nifty 50 f1.8 (portrait)
- Tamron SP70-300 f4-5.6 (wildlife, sport, event,)
What I have works well for me but.. but I've outgrown the zoom..
@oje101 it's still difficult to advise. If you just want reach, then the 200-800 wins, but as with everything there is a trade off.
I was thinking with the 100-500 and the r7 that's an 800mm reach. I think for me that's more than enough.. I think I rather have the better image iq that lens offers.. is there a huge difference between 800mm and 1280mm? I don't think for a non pro. Such as I that reach is needed.. but then is the price of the 100-500 worth it compared to a 150-600mm sigma contemporary.. it's worth it to me if the image iq is night and day.. what are your thoughts on this..
Excellent !
Thank you very much. Glad you found it useful. 👍
Will R3 or R5 minimise issues with this lens noise.
I don't have those camera bodies to to test this, but as the R6 and R7 were the same I would hypothesise not. But I don't think the noise is a deal breaker unless you are taking photos in a super stealthy environment.
@@wildphilthank you for your quick reply I am waiting to buy R5II next year if it is not coming soon I am planning to buy R5. Currently I am using eos R. I am wondering full frame camera with low light camera capabilities could resolve this. I like 100-500 but with teleconverter price might be double in that scenario.
Both lenses are gold, there are no bad choices. You may not struggle with low light conditions depending on the amount of sunny days you have. In the UK, we get a lot of grey rainy days
Even though I have the R6 and R7 (R6 for landscape and R7 for wildlife) after seeing this I am leaning towards the 100-500. Still out of my price range ATM as 100-500 is $4100AUD(sale) v 200-800 $3100(sale). The Sigma 150-600 will do for now.
Thanks, Tony. I have the Sigma too. I've done a video in the same format as this comparing the Sigma 150-600mm to the 100-500 if it helps, youll find it in my gear reveiws area on the channel homepage. Just to say the Sigma is still an awesome value proposition in opinion, I think it's probably one of the the best bang for buck lenses out there.
The statement about f stops and amount of background in focus is wrong. The F9 on full frame is still F9 on crop sensor. The idea of f-stop equivalent is for filling entire frame on both sensors - that means using longer focal length on full frame and that means increasing magnification and that means reducing depth of field. In order to bring that depth of field to the size it has on crop sensor the lens has to be stopped down 1.6 times just as the focal length was increased 1.6 times. It is easiest to remember that depth of field depends only on magnification and aperture. If the lens is set at the same focal length and f-stop on full frame and crop sensor then it will produce exactly the same image - it can not be any other way because the lenses in the lens and aperture blades are in exactly the same position. All the sensor can do is to crop larger or smaller part of that image.
Yes your correct, however what Mr Law alludes to is how the aperture renders according to sensor size.
@@StevenHadfield-oo4ql It renders the same image no matter the sensor size. Could you give more detailed description of what you mean because there is probably some misunderstanding here.
Hi both. I may not have articulated it the best but what I mean is with the F stop set the same on both cameras, the full frame sensor renders the image with better subject separation (slightly more blurry background) than the crop sensor. I agree that the same f stop number on both cameras will stop down the blads inside the lens to the same aperture, its how the sensors render the image that are different.
Thank you. Yes, that is exactly my understanding too . You've explained it far better than I did 👍
@@wildphil Both sensors will get the same image if the focal length and aperture are the same. The smaller sensor's image will be a crop of the larger sensor's image and that's all. Nothing will be more blurred, no change in depth of field or anything else. Sensor doesn't create an image, it only registers what the lens provides. Maybe you mean that a lower resolution crop from a larger image will be more blurry than a higher resolution image from smaller sensor?
I wish I had seen this review before I bought this lens for my R7. I'm seeing exactly what you stated, the focus is just slightly off all to regularly. Quite disappointed with it.
Hi Aidan. Don't despair, you can still get epic shots with the R7! It's just not as snappy and accurate on focus as with a full frame camera that's all. If you have relatively static subject your keeper rates should be much better 👍
R6 mark 2 is the way to go with the 200-800 lenses
I've no doubt it'll work brilliantly.
at 26:30 talking about aperture and iso you made a few mistakes.
your dof with apsc is only greater than ff if you back up to get the same framing as ff. with wildlife this doesnt really apply. if you have a ff camera with 200-800 at 800mm f9 and i have a r7 with 200-800 at 800mm f9 and we are both shooting the same subject thats lets say 100 feet away then the dof on the r7 image is actually less than the ff image. in that scenario using a calculator the ff image dof woulkd be 2' 6" and the r7 image would be 1' 6.5". If I backed up another 30 feet to match your framing then my dof would be equivalent to f14. or if i zoomed out the r7 to 500mm and f8 on 200-800 to match the framing of 800mm on ff camera itd also work out to have a greater dof
second mistake was the apsc body is not "gathering less light so youll need a higher iso" if both are shooting at 800mm f9 and same shutter speed your iso will be identical. The difference is that the noise on the ff camera will be equivalent to around a stop less than the apsc. so if your iso comes out to 6400 on ff camera then itll look like similar noise level to the apsc image at 3200 iso. However if you crop the ff image to apsc fov then you essentially add back a stop of noise
Hi TheMrNeffels. Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points there. There's quite a long thread on this subject buried in these comments somewhere - feel free to join in if you can find the thread.
@@wildphil I think I see the one you mean but all you really said was a repeat of the video and that you agree to disagree. I fully agree that everyone should use the camera they like to take the images they like but when you're making a video to help people decide between gear I think you do need to get the facts right.
I'm also not sure what you disagree with. The dof thing can be checked on any dof calculator. The iso thing is a quick Google search.
I had an r3 the past week from canon to try out. I did a noise and cropping test where I had a stuffed raccoon about 50 feet away and then took photos at 500mm f7.1 on r7 and r3 from same spot. Both camera on auto iso selected the same iso each time when framing was kept consistent and images were identical in exposure. With FF it is fairly common that it may select a lower iso because of the wider fov often getting more of the brighter sky in frame. So maybe that is what you are thinking of. If you expose based on the subject with spot metering or your scene is all consistent though the iso will be the same. The difference being a FF camera like an r3 will have 1 1/3 stop better noise performance. Meaning if you needed to you could raise your iso a stop and a third before your image was as noisy as the crop image. Which if other settings are the same would give you a brighter image too. Which can be useful for wildlife. Your crop sensor camera isn't going to need or use a higher iso value to get same exposure as FF though. The reason I prefer aps-c for wildlife is once you crop the FF image to same fov as aps-c the FF image is also blowing up the noise so you lose the noise advantage and have way less mp. So if you're often shooting at your max focal length and needing to crop aps-c image will provide more detail.
For the dof thing in my iso test there was a line of trees a hundred yards behind the raccoon. At 500mm f7.1 with both cameras the r3 did not blow or render the trees out the trees more. It was the same with all the images of wildlife I took over the time I had the r3 too. I'd swap back and forth between cameras and when shooting from the same spot the r3 never had a shallower dof than the R7. Just a much wider fov. If I got closer with the r3 so the fov matched the R7 fov from the 10 feet further back or whatever then the r3 had a dof advantage.
Overall it's a good video. I just think that one part you either have a slight misunderstanding or explained it a bit wrong
Why would you expect a bag with this lens? It’s less than $2k USD. Putting a bag in the box that no one would just would just drive the price up, or cut into their ability to make a profit. We need Canon to be profitable to get them to make products like this! The hood is something that almost everyone would use, which is not true for the budget lenses that Canon sells. Again, Canon has done this the right way and have brought value to their customers.
Hi Anthony. In the UK, it's a lot more at 2300 GBP. In fact my 100-500 cost me only 200 more - both new from authorised dealers. I've noticed the USD pricing is more favourable than we get over here.
@@wildphil Now that is unfair! the difference should be similar. Yeah, Canon should be putting more in the box in the UK.
Interesting review, But 2 questions for you, Why does every one review the 100 - 500 v 200 - 800, both lens's are over 2 grand EACH, Why has no one tested the Sigma 150 600 against the the 200 - 800? The sigma is well sub £1k, in fact around £1500 cheaper. pair with a tele 1.4, you have same weight, longer reach ( 820) and faster lens. We are not talking professional photographers earning their living on the images, but it is clearly targeted at the amateur photographer, I have the Sigma, and the R7, I don't see any need to upgrade my camera to full frame, but I am wondering about the 200 - 800 lens, but I can't see any reason to spend over £2k when I am happy with the Sigma. And since every one is shying away from comparing them, there has to be reason, i.e., no gain.
Hi Ron. Tha ks for your comment. I do have the Sigma Contemporary, too, actually. I've already covered it vs the 100-500 on my chanel so I didn't feel the need to do so again (and time too, these reviews take me an age to make and edit). The Sigma is a great lens for the money however I'll say that with a 1.4x converter on it the performance of the RF lenses are night and day better for image quality and speed of course. Both RF lenses are sharper than the Sigma- but that doesn't make the Sigma bad. I think it delivers great value for its cost and still produces great photos.
Thanks Phil, have not found that video, will dig deeper, I expect the rf lens to be better as they are adequate for each other and the full benefits can't be seen if not utilising all the rf benefits and features, but I am getting g great shots with the sigma and try not to use the tele unless really needed.
You say your video is against the 100 500, so again the 200 800 is missing, why buy the 100 500 whenthe sigma canbe so good? so I guess what your saying is spend the 2.4k on the 200 800 😢
Hi Ron. If it helps, that review is here. It's another long one! ua-cam.com/video/WH5s1vxlsEM/v-deo.html
I'd rather have the RF200-800mm and have an R7 and R5/R6 cause it is usable on both depending on external factors than having a 100-500mm and only usable on R7 as for full frame it is too wide. TC's are a big no for me but everyone to his own.
Yep, hit the nail on the head there. It's all very much down to personal preferences. Both are great lenses.
That box within a box is what you want when spending 2k on a lens
Hi Gary, yeah quite a lot of folks in the comments agree with you.
Hi Phil,
Some corrections:
1. using a lens on a APS-C crop body doesn't change the f stop...smaller pixel sizes do mean more DOF though...this is why a large super tele prime on a FF body is desirable for birding photography.
2. When you turn IS off on a Canon lens (EF or RF, doesn't matter), IBIS is turned off in the body. There is no way to have IBIS on when IS is off. The menu setting is in fact, disabled as soon as you turn IS off on your lens. My 1st gen EF 500f4 prime makes a racket when IS Is turned on btw. A mate who also had the same lens, reported the same issue too. Newer generations have quieter IS.
3. AF performance and speed is typically linked to sensor read out speed. The R7 has a very slow 37ms readout speed and this is the real cause of it's well, poor AF. Yes, larger pixels can and does help (more light for the DPAF functionality to detect contrast). And yes, the dual motors in the RF100-500 will also help somewhat.
Many thanks for the excellent review. I am currently saving to upgrade to a EF600f4 II prime, but will grab the RF200-800 in 4 or 5 years (prime is my priority). In fact, I will probably grab the 600 first, then a used mark 1 R5, and then the RF200-800.
Hi Dave
Thanks for comments. I don't think smaller pixel sizes affect the depth of field, but instead it's the overall sensor size rather than the size of each individal pixel - that's what I belive anyway.
Thanks for the info on points 2 and 3. Certainly for point 2, I concur with the new RF lenses on the option for IBIS in the menu is not there, yet when I adapt an old EF 50mm, the IBIS options then appear in the menu 👍
I've not yet had the pleasure of using one of the big F4 primes that you're looking to get - maybe one day! - wishing you the bets of luck with it.
@@wildphil EF lenses behave the same way as RF lenses with regards to IS/IBIS. My nifty 50 doesn't have IS. If a lens doesn't have IS, I think you can turn on IBIS.
Yes, my apologies. You are correct, it's sensor size and not pixel size that affect apparent DOF.
The big f4 primes are heavy, but so worth it. They are sharper than the RF100-500, even my old mark 1 500f4 (and the 2nd gen are a bit sharper than the mark 1 units). My 500f4 is razor sharp. I sometimes joke that it's that sharp, I cut myself when I pick it up. Just be aware that only the 1 series, R3 and R1 have enough current via batteries to power both AF motors in the mark 2 lenses. A R5 and R5II will lack the current and ONLY drive 1 of the AF motors. Also, go with the mark 3 TC. It is optically sharper than the mark 1 & 2 TCs, plus weather sealed and has a AF chip to better communicate and perform AF functions with the mark 2 super tele primes.
background music too loud 🔊🔊🔊🔊
Thank you, that's good feedback for me to consider for next time.
It's too bad you can't get the 200-800
Yeah, I heard there were supply issues. I ordered mine on announcement day and it still took 3 months to arrive.
I subscribed and turned 999 into 1k, I deserve a prize 🏆 🤣🤣🤣
PS. Thank you for reviewing these to lens, I already own R5 and sigma 50-500 and works well but sigma 1.4 teleconverter does not work with my sigma 50-500 and was looking for a bit more reach for birding and moon photos and think I may have to sell another kidney for the canon 200-800 🤣🥳🥳
I’d give you two 100-500’s for one 200-800….. straight across. The 100-500 is all but worthless to me. Not long enough about 95% of the time. And it sucks (being barely contractable) with TC’s.
If you shoot big stuff, or larger BIF, Hawks, Eagles and such, the 100-500 might be okay, but for being no faster than it is, I still believe it’s way overpriced.
I have rented both the 100-500 (and it did nothing for me) and the 200-800, and I absolutely loved it. I’d absolutely be using it now, if Canon would ever get their chit together and make enough of them to catch up ☹️
They will probably finally be available right at the same time they announce the R7 Mk II, and then I will be really torn. I love / hate. MyR7’s, but they really need some upgrades badly. Still better than my R5 was (for my purposes) but it could be SO much better…. FF sucks for my purposes.
Thanks for your comment, Chris. An interesting and different perspective which may well suit many better 👍
Bad linzes 200-800. not fine frame.
Hi there. I can only speak for my own experience but I would say it's a bad lens at all. I do agree it is better suited to full frame, but I've till hav great shots with it on an APSC sensor.
Well, when you make me struggle with you opening a box, it is a waste of my time. Thank you.
Many people appreciate the unboxing. But for those that don't, that's why the video has chapters so you can skip ahead to the sections you might find relevant. It's not a lot of effort to drag the slider past the unboxing.
I don't like your review, thanks,,,
Give the guy some credit he did a lot of work to make this review and I think he did one of the best reviews of these 2 lenses .
Thanks, Gary. Ha, it's the internet- you have to be prepared for any and all types of comments! I don't mind it if people disagree with me or don't like my reviews or even if they voice it, provided it's done with respect and ideally some constructive feedback if people aren't a fan so I know how to improve. On the plus side even the bad comments do help bump up the algorithm!
It would be useful if you gace your reasons for not liking it.. too technical, not technical enough, style content etc etc - I thought it was a good review and I have watched several. In the end, I have a 1-5 and although I pre-ordered the 2-8 I cancelled it, for the reasons given in this review.. Well done Gary..
@@wildphil Hello Phil , I did get my 200 - 800 .
I've got mixed emotions about it , in some ways it works good in some ways it doesn't , the image quality between 600 mm and 800 mm is not very good , and I bought the 1.4 X teleconverter with it as well , BUT I DEFINITELY will NOT use it with this lens , and for doing birds in flight it's just too slow in focusing .
The old but trusted Canon 400 F 5.6 is 10 times better than the 200 - 800 for Birds in flight .
I will keep the 200 - 800 for a travel lens to use on birding trips that will be the main purpose of it .
Hi Gary. Have you tried contacting Canon? I've not noticed any image problems on my copy but that said if you decided to move the lens on, right now you probably wouldn't have too much difficulty selling it as its out of stock everywhere. I'm not surprised an f5.6 lens out perofrms it for birds in flight, that's quite a lot more light.
hi are you interested joining mt panel on a livestream we like to chat about photography.
Sorry for the late reply, it has been a tough week! I'm not really a livestream kinda guy but I really do appreciate the offer and invite. Good luck with the show 👍