DUMP The 100-500 OR Can TELECONVERTERS Make The DIFFERENCE? Canon RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500 Review

[@marktaylor9579]

If size and weight were no object I'd go for the 200-800 in a heartbeat, but as they are more imprtant than an extra 100m at the long end, but 100mm less at the short end, I'll stick with the 100-500 and 1.4x. Thanks for a really well presented and balanced review Jan. I've waited a while for such a review and wasn't disappointed. Have a great 2024.

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you, you too!

[@flotinaway7]

Not that long ago I was delighted with my 70-300L, then the Sigma 150-600 was fantastic for reach but had such a poor keeper rate, and later the 100-500 Canon was a dream come true, but now 200-800 is looking to be my next addition...thanks for the great review.

[@Scott_Bishell]

As far as image quality and colours, the ef70-300l is imo the most underrated lens

[@ajc4000]

@@Scott_Bishellthat was my first L lens and I loved it.

[@coltoncyr2283]

What video did you just watch?? LOL If you have the 100-500mm, i would just buy a TC, the 100-500mm range is already better, and equal when adding a TC up to 700mm.

[@MrWiseinheart]

Maybe if you wait a bit longer there will be a 100-1000mm 2.8 soon 😅

[@ajc4000]

@@MrWiseinheartat 100k (grams and dollars)

[@RodneyDugmore]

Thanks Jan! I will keep my 100-500 and add a 1.4 for 3 reasons , Portability , Versatility, and Close focus. In addition to Birds I do a lot of landscape photography and the 100-500 is way more useful to me.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes if you use the wide end a lot the 100-500 is an easy choice

[@RogerJones-mountfield]

The 1.4 extender is often a right pain, loosing 100-300 owing to the design is extremely annoying, hire one first before buying

[@rvboondocker2559]

I agree Rodney. Same for me.

[@ZE3kr]

I think the weight and size of RF 100-500 is just in the sweet spot. Anything heavier than that can be hard to handhold (for me).

[@jouniairplanevideos]

The weight isn't that big of an issue. You'll get used to it

[@rvboondocker2559]

Agreed

[@ronrotunno2901]

I couldn’t agree more, the weight of the RF 100-500 is the sweet spot for me. I typically image in the desert (at elevation) and 3 lbs versus 4.5lbs makes all the difference in the world. It’s the perfect size for travel too.

[@threepe0]

Drink when you hear "millimeter lens"

[@skysharkoutdoor7458]

Already drunk

[@Matt90541]

I wouldn't survive

[@MadRabbit92]

Dang it. I can’t watch this video anymore without hearing this extensively.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

I keyworded "mm lens" in the transcript and he said it 97 times lol

[@oliwawuff]

Dude… now I cannot overhear it 😂

[@Kellysher]

Jan, I’m a 61 year old woman and weight is a consideration, as I want to enjoy the experience! I shoot the R5 100-500. I have the 1.4 tc, that I use infrequently for waterfowl. I just don’t love the weight of carrying that combo all the time and I lose the 100mm option for macro type shots. I believe the weight of the 100-500 with the 1.4 tc is similar to having the 200-800, and I wouldn’t like that! That said, I’ve recently programmed a button on the R5 to switch from full frame to crop easier. If I understand the spec, that allows you to be at 800 mm and 17 MP. I think I’ve got stuck in my head previously that this was not enough MP! However, I’ve seen several videos recently that show these photos would produce very good quality large prints. I’d love to see you do a video on this topic and printing those 17 MP images.

[@jean-louisrousselle1794]

The reviewer I trust and appreciate. Thank you Jan. If I were starting out I would most definitely opt for the 200-800mm. This not being the case, coupled to my appreciation for smaller size and light weight equipment, dictates that I continue with the 100-500 & 1.4 when required, my well appreciated « heavy » 600 f/4 when in the appropriate circumstances. Thank you for a most objective and well documented review.

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

Please tell us more about your 600 f/4 dream lens, is it worth abandoning the idea of this 200-800mm to lay down another 10k for the 600mm f4 or even the 400mm 2.8 for a sharper image?

[@philloibanton7994]

I have been waiting for this review to basically be a decisive factor. I initially watched the review on my phone before I got home. I then got home and watched it on my Samsung s95b. Immediately I had a final decision. You might not notice it and it might pass you by unless you scale up with watching the review. THE RF 100-500 is noticeably sharper, and the images handle the edits much better than that of the 200-800. I paused the video on my 65 inch tv at 14:33 and I had to be honest. With the teleconverter at 700 the RF 100-500 is sharper and captures much more “RAW” for post production. The 200-800 is impressive for not being an L series and the reason for that while negligible is quite evident.

[@roberthoy1023]

RF 200-800mm lens is a very tempting. I've given some serious consideration and decided to stay with my RF 100-500mm lens and 1.4x converter. Looking forward to 200-500mm F4 when it comes out.

[@janetteplanck4504]

Are there any rumours pointing to such a lens?

[@John_Hudson_922]

thanks for putting so much effort and detail into these videos. they are extremely high quality and thorough.

[@RogerJones-mountfield]

Thanks, Jan this has convinced me to stay with my 100-500 + 1.4 Extender (just) it was very tempting to buy yet another lens but really I can’t warrant the cost 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@jmich5123]

Some of the best and in depth analysis on KZbin. Thanks Jan.

[@FrankSD76]

Thanks!

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you!

[@noelchignell1048]

Thanks for this comparison Jan I've just bought an R6 mark ii to replace my 1DX ii and I see now why people bang on about changing to mirrorless: the AF and tracking are freakishly good. I'm currently still using my EF 100-400mm ii zoom alongside my 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/2.8 and also using 1.4x and 2x extenders. All these lenses work much better with my new camera but I'm considering buying an RF 100-500 or RF 200-800mm and selling my 100-400 I'll probably buy the 200-800 as it's a lot cheaper than the 100-500 plus a 1.4x extender. One comparison that would be interesting is comparing the R5 and RF 100-500 with the R6 ii and RF 200-800 as the extra reach/magnification of 800mm over 500mm is effectively a 1.6x crop and if you crop the R5's 45 mp by 1.6x (i.e. divide it by 1.6x1.6 = 2.56) you get 17.5 mp which is a lot less than the R6ii's 24 mp. I'll miss my 100-400's great close up semi-macro performance and wide field of view at 100mm vs 200mm but I can always use my iphone for that. Cheers Noel Auckland New Zealand

[@jenniferbattalin6832]

Great analysis! I never saw the value in upgrading from my EF 100-400mm II to the RF 100-500 mm. However, I just got the 200 - 800 mm and absolutely love the reach. My kit will include both the EF 100-400 and the 200-800 mm. I may add the 1.4 extender at some point.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing

[@mstrathmore]

That’s such a good combo! The 100-400 is an awesome lens but doesn’t like TCs as much as RF, and the 200-800 will give you amazing reach at excellent quality. I’ve been amazed at how good the RF lenses are with TCs; you won’t regret a 1.4 if you go that route.

[@jertexjertex7880]

Your videos on the 200-800mm have been very helpful. I have the R5, but have continued to use my EF glass - 100-400mm MII, 300mm f/2.8 MII, 500 f/4 MII. I've decided to get some native RF glass, but wasn't 100% sure I'd be satisfied with the 100-500 as that much better than my 100-400 to justify the $3K since I have the 500 prime. I think that the 200-800 is the perfect compromise for me, it gets me over to some native RF glass, gives me reach with a hand-holdable lens that I've never had, and gives me the versatility of the zoom lens. As much as I'd love to upgrade my primes to the RF 400 & 600, it's very difficult for an amateur to justify even one of those lenses, much less both when I already have the 300 & 500, which function better on my R5 than they did on my 1DxMII.

[@FrankSD76]

You can’t have too many lenses-I’ll keep them both and enjoy the flexibility. But it’s going to be harder and harder to convince myself to drag my EF600/f4 along. Great video, and very timely. Thanks, Jan.

[@jan_wegener]

Same here!

[@ludowild]

Thank you Jan for sharing ! My first tests of the RF200-800 with my R7 are rather encouraging! All the autofocus settings still need to be fine-tuned! The difference with my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is significant!

[@jan_wegener]

Yes compared to the Sigmas with the AF pulsing issues in the R cameras it should be a big difference

[@honeybadger1656]

Is the image quality better in your opinion? I have the 150-600 but am really struggling with the keeper rates and focus problems.

[@ludowild]

The image quality is better! The Rf 200-800 is completely silent on video unlike the Sigma 150-600 which is very noisy! the autofocus is much more responsive, however, it still sometimes happens that the autofocus has difficulty finding its target with the RF200-800, this does not revolutionize the R7 either! But overall the difference is really significant since it is rarer to have a series where 1 image out of 2 is blurred...I am going to sell my 150-600 to only use the RF200-800 knowing that the 320mm extra is very useful to me!@@honeybadger1656

[@jeffolson4731]

Great review. I have both lenses and both the R5 and the R7. Your review mirrors my experience. I normally go out with the RF100-500 on the R5 and the RF200-800 on the R7 and have a 1.4x with me just in case. I like having the flexibility of having 100mm to 1280mm when I am out. Since days and bird activity differs from day to day, some days I take most pictures with one setup over the other. In either case I know I am going to get good pictures.

[@photojasinski]

That 100-400 vs 100-500 transition at 1:10 was so cool! As someone who travels a lot, my 100-500L with the 2x is a wonderful combo and I use my 500 f/4L II when at home and size is not a problem. Nice to see more options from Canon and great content from you!

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks!

[@mikecullis8401]

I have the 500mm prime, Mk1 300mm prime, 100-500 RF lenses and shoot with the R5. I had to economise on space/weight when travelling to the Falkland Islands a few years back when I was shooting with the 1DX. I completed some research and decided to take the 100-400mm along with the 300mm f2.8 and times 2 and 1.4 teleconverters. I have astonishingly sharp images with the 300mm and the teleconverters. Recently I have been using my R5 with the 300mm with converters. Blown away by the quality; and the hand held capability is a dream! Simply place this set up on a monopod for portability - and what a low cost and impressive outcome!

[@lawrencelam1820]

Hi Jan, what do you think about the difference between R5+200-800 and R7+100-500 since the latter combo has an advantage of a bit larger aperture of F7.1 ?

[@framed-tales]

You lose the aperture advantage when you crop to get the same reach. I mean the DOF at f7.1for R7 will act like f10-f11 on R5. And noise performance will depend on the sensor quality. R5 has more pixel area so it’s supposed to be cleaner. I guess it will be a wash. I have the R7+100-500 combo and I am happy with it

[@jeffgaboury3157]

I finally got to shoot my 200-800 on my R8 on Christmas day. I was hoping for an eagle or an osprey in flight along the Niagara Parkway, but had to settle for some swimming mallards and merganzers. When it came to birds in flight I wasn't having any luck on the parkway, so I went to a beach and captured the one bird here in Niagara that will always fly for you...the common gull. They are a great subject, both for learning how to shoot birds in flight, as they aren't shy at all, but also for testing new lens/camera combos. You can always find them here in the Great Lakes region! If anything, they are too habituated to people, and they ran into fairly long minimum-focus distance. But overall the results were very impressive and a huge improvement over my 7DII with the EF 100-400 (original, not the Mark II). Can't wait to use it more!

[@onnonugteren2935]

What a very good summary! you can see and feel your experience in this bird field photography! 🙂 Also I like your part about the 100 and 200 minimum focus of both. .....This is so much underestimated in use. I would far more love to have this 100-500 lens above the 200-800 lens because of the more interesting photo's I will make are more a mix of cultural and nature photography. Most of the more interesting pictures are made than on the shorter end of such a lens. That's also why I call both lenses more amateur lenses because I consider there the 70-200 4.0 a more professional one, or off course the 2.8. Completing it than with having one longer lens you can afford to take with you in size and weight. I fully agree about your claim that F9-11 on long ends is not so much a problem anymore. But only on the LONG ends! It absolutely matters at the short ends. I like the 70-200 4.0 therefor far more for me with a long lens in reserve. F11 600mm rf ? 🙂 Greetings from the Netherlands again, Onno Nugteren Photographer and Filmmaker.

[@mobelue]

Really good. I’ve been waiting on this video for some and you did not disappoint. Nice of you to throw in the EF 100-400 for good measure.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

The video everyone was waiting for! Jan is the MVP! Though choice for R7 owners like me, go FF as 2nd body first before upgrading to the 200-800? I'm gonna sit on the dilemma for a while and then decide. Your vids definitely are invaluable help. Imma probably wait for the R7ii, see if it truly delivers and fixes the quirks. Then, decide on a new body (used R5 when the prices will drop, or R6ii/8, or R7ii) before going for the 200-800. I kinda want my next body to have better pre capture implementation too, and might have to wait a little longer for that... It's been making the choice harder, as I want my next camera to last me for a long while. I'd be really frustrated if they fix it right after I upgrade my R7. With the (still sky high) prices in Canada, honestly, the 100-500 ship has passed for me, I'm skipping it and there's that. I already know the 200-800 is without a doubt my endgame lens for one day as an avid birder, but still not sure what the next step forward is for me. In the meantime, still enjoying the R7+ef500 F4 mki and RF100-400. One day, I'll also upgrade my prime to any of the mkii's, but no rush there too. My kit certainly delivers (most) of the time! I'll focus on the birds in the meantime and enjoy what I have now. Thanks again Jan and happy new year!

[@mikeymike4366]

I was in the exact boat you are in now. Except I had the 100-500mm and the r7, went out and got the 200-800, it online took two shots, I dumbed the 100-500 and now using the R7 on the 200-800, amazing pictures, quality, and autofocus. I’m also waiting for the r7 II or the r5 II (better deal on the r5). We’ll see.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@@mikeymike4366 Good to know!!!! That means, I can maybe get the 200-800 whenever, before or after FF or R7ii maybe doesn't matter. If it does work well with the R7 and doesn't need FF (with the F9 and all, ngl, it does scare me), might as well get the lens now and stay on the same plan. It's just, I have the money for the lens now, but I'm wondering if that money wouldn't be better spent in a body upgrade, either now or, sometime later. I do also own the sigma 150-600C, which the 200-800 would be replacing. I might sell the sigma first, wait for restocks of the 200-800 to arrive, then decide on it after the medium/long term reviews are out. Thanks a lot for the feedback, much appreciated 😀

[@Dartheomus]

This is the video I was waiting for! The comparison shots were fantastic! I have the 100-500 and a 2x teleconverter. The 200-800 is tempting... I'm not sure if I can justify it , but 1600 with the 2x seems like it would be fun!

[@VisualizeHealing]

f/18??? Whoa!

[@snertius]

Excellent, just the type of comparison review I was waiting for. And now it's decided, I need the 100-500 for my R7 and the 200-800 for the R8. Just need to convince the good lady to release some funds, wish me luck!

[@flahertygamecalls]

One of the best reviews I have seen. Well done. Great comparisons and well thought summaries of these lens’s. Thanks.

[@jan_wegener]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@flahertygamecalls]

@@jan_wegener I see the focus issues you have had with the r7 from day one. Mine doesn’t have those hunting issues at all. Either I got a good copy or yours has issues. I use it with the ef300 f/2.8 is ii. With the 1.4x teleconverter. Going to get your masterclass program shortly.

[@killtheskill]

Simple analysis: If you’re a avid birder then 200-800, if you like to shift between various subjects like mammals, birds, reptiles and if you like good habitat shots then nothing can beat 100-500. I personally use 100-500 and it’s the Best Buy, a must in any photographers collection..

[@jeffreythomas7036]

But for avid birders the size and weight of the lens is an important consideration so not necessary so simple.

[@jimtipton8888]

Plus it's a great landscape lens!

[@JeffandLeslie]

Jan, very through and straightforward review. Thank you for sharing. Like someone else below said, if I didn't already have the 100-500, I would be on the waiting list for the 200-800. I shot with the R7 body so reach at 500 has never really been a problem. I do shoot a lot of "environmental" type wildlife shots so the wide end is good for me. In fact, at 100mm on the R7 effective angle of view is about 160, and that can be too tight for the wider environmental shots. I still may end up with a 200-800 but going to hold my wallet closed a little longer. The itch for the 200-800 is definitely there just not sure if I gain enough with it to keep both lenses and giving up the 100-500 doesn't seem wise to me right now. Again, thanks for your review. I liked how you presented the two.

[@framed-tales]

One point I would like to add to Jan’s fantastic review, the 200-800mm lens with TCs is the best for LUNAR Photography. Personally I already have RF 100-500 but no regret whatsoever.🎉

[@Marleydia]

Great review! I agree it’s not either or, it’s both! Of course if the budget is there. I’m shooting with the R5 and the 100-500 handheld. The weight and versatility are unbeatable. I have the 1.4 tc, but I don’t use it much because I then want the monopod too! The 200-800 is definitely interesting. For me, it would have limited field use due to the weight, and minimal focus. I would love to have the 200-800 for ducks that migrate through in the winter months. They tend to stay pretty far from shore and are skittish. I’m holding out to see what new camera bodies canon will release in 2024 before spending any more on gear! I think 2024 will be a big year for Canon!

[@shichaosun3298]

agree that it is not great time for spending money

[@toto_chanel6952]

SImply excellent and exhaustive review with personal inputs... as usual. Big thanks

[@jan_wegener]

Glad you liked it

[@Photobirder]

Hi Jan, thanks for an interesting comparison report between these lenses. Without going into too many reasons why, im curious to know how the 200-800 would match up to a combination of 100-500 and 800 f11 in the field when the longer focal length is needed? I feel the 200-800 is rather bulky compared to the 100-500 and wouldn't consider one in addition to the smaller L lens.

[@savillecreations8046]

For me the ideal setup is having the 70-200 and the 200-800 with the extenders when needed. Thanks for the informative video.

[@pdel7007]

What a fantastic review. I moved from a Sigma 150-600 because of it's drawbacks to the 100-500 and love the Canon zoom. I love its size and almost macro close focusing. I love the 100-500 for landscape and sports. I know we always want more reach and I'm tempted by the 200-800 but wildlife is not my main subject so for now I'll try to get closer to my subjects in the UK and keep using my 100-500.

[@daviddieli6019]

I plan to start wearing ear buds without being connected to anything to keep people from bothering me when I'm using a longer, bigger lens.

[@jan_wegener]

😂

[@jbg653]

One thing you didn’t mention was price. The 100-500mm with a 1.4 teleconverter is currently $3200 US. The 200-800mm is $1900 US. To me that is significant. I haven’t switched over to the RF system yet but I’m leaning towards the 200-800mm lens when I do. I can still use all my L series EF lenses with an adapter, including my 100-400mm F4. I realize the newer RF lenses are sharper but my finances are not unlimited and I’m not a pro photographer. I think I will be more than satisfied with the 200-800mm lens. Great video BTW.

[@garyknight3019]

I’m certainly happy with the 200-800 compared to the Sigma 150 -600 sport. I h improved keeper rate and the lighter package is better on my dodgy wrists. I think down the track I would be looking to add a lens that is more open for rain forest shooting.

[@ForrestWest]

Another well-informed comparison and video, thank you! For me considering budget and lightweight the RF800mm f11 and RF100-400mm both cost less than either of those big telephotos and are so enjoyable to carry and shoot with in the field! I never have any problems with a lack of image quality and with the R7 and R8 I'm getting all the reach I need.

[@edwardwilson4974]

Thanks for the video, Jan. I would love to know the location of the shooting as it looks a great place to go!

[@jan_wegener]

the terns? That as Philip Island, but they are in a not as good spot this year, mainly further down the hill. Still flying around a lot tho

[@robertrosiak7]

What to choose ? I use Sigma 150 - 600 (with Canon R5) so the answer is obvious 😉 But the flexibility of RF 100 - 500 is really tempting. Thank you for the good material. Greetings from France !

[@donnancb]

I’d been trying to decide between getting the 100-500 or the 200-800 and after watching your video, I decided to get the 100-500. So far I love it! I already had the RF 1.4 extender, so I will be using that some of the time. But it came down to the versatility. I live in Colorado so I do a lot of mountain hiking and the 100-500 fits in my backpack while not adding too much weight. Plus I like to take photos of a variety of subjects. Maybe a moose, then a small bird like a chickadee, then a little pika, then a wildflower…..and this setup seemed more appropriate. Plus, it’d a long time waiting on back orders to get the 200-800 and in meantime I would miss a lot of pictures. So I’m happy with my decision and thank you for helping me make it. Someday maybe I’ll also get the 200-800 since it seems to be a fantastic lens, but for now I’m happy.

[@alansach8437]

Wow! What a great review. Very thorough, and a lot to think about. The best choice is obvious: both!

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you kindly!

[@jan_wegener]

With cameras the best choice always seems to be the most expensive one too 🙈

[@berdel]

I wonder if using a very good uv filter with nice coatings could compensate the issue with the glare of the 200-800???

[@mavs8888]

Superbe! Thank you and wishing you a photo-rich 2024! Not too difficult with so many great animals so “close” to where you are… Take Care, Max

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you! You too!

[@carlom.3737]

Thank you for the video! I love my 100-500 so much I'd never think to get rid of it. But I watched this because I was curious if I could get by "on the cheap" by just adding the RF 1.4X TC vs. adding the 200-800. Given how the TC only works starting at 300mm on the 100-500 (thus working only on the long end of the lens) I think it makes more sense to save up and add the 200-800. Not only will I get the additional 100mm reach at 1/3 lower stop (f/9 vs f/10) but I'll be able to go down to 200 without changing lenses, vs a 1.4X TC 100-500 will make me have take off the TC if I want to go below 420mm (effective). This is an expensive hobby.

[@jgreysquirrel]

Looking to rent the 200-800 with an R7 and hopefully upgrade from the sigma 150-600 with my 80D. This video was helpful, thank you!

[@johnmckay428]

hmmmm...I have the 100-500 and the 1.4, so think I might stick with this...thanks for vid

[@ww3688]

Great comprehensive review Jan! The IQ between the 2 configurations is too close to make the call! But overall compactness and having the 100-500 + 1.4x already makes it a no-brainer. I would get the 200-800 just to put the 1.4x on for the insane ~1800mm FOV on the R7.

[@HangingpixelsPhotoArt]

Thank you very much for this review Jan. I saw Port Fairy in your video too! A little cold at times but an awesome place to live.

[@jan_wegener]

It’s a lovely little town

[@mv52525]

Appreciate your candid review. You made the case for me to buy 200-800mm as I was on the fence.

[@petergottschling2597]

Hello Jan, I was in Namibia last month. I found for birds that the 100-500 with 1.4x was excellent for birds but not suitable for mammals because of the minimum 420mm focal length. Since I knew what our targets would be every day I could plan what to set up. I few times I did have to change from one to the other to get usable photos. I was impressed with the sharpness of the 100-500 with the 1.4x extender. Early morning and late afternoon shots were very high ISO but Lightroom Enhance did a good job with them. I can't justify two lenses and would not want to give up the 100-500 range so will stay with it for now.

[@Royalsafaricollection]

So what lens would you recommend for mammals in Africa?

[@LiveNLetLive1977]

Great summary between the 100-500 and 200-800 Canon RF lenses. Could you do an overview between the Sigma 150-600 vs the Canon RF 200-800. I have a R7 body and recently bought the Sigma 150-600 mainly for birding and wildlife photography. But with the option of the 200-800 and I now torn as to what to do. I have had several instances of missed opportunity since the Sigma was just slow is focusing and latching onto the subject.

[@ianhares9832]

Thanks Jan, you've just answered the question that has been bugging me since I pre-ordered the 200-800. Just need the lens now!

[@raylo1017]

Thank you Jan for your honest opinion. It's truly appreciated! I don't own the 100-500mm but I do own the 200-800mm and I'm very satisfied so far. The 100-500mm always seemed to be out of my budget and still is until they announced the 200-800mm. Now I sold my R6 for the R5 Black Friday sale with battery grip for the an amazing $2999 price. Now i'm broke but happy that I have a great setup! Thank you for this comparison, you made me feel like I made a good choice.

[@milvusotis]

That's my big dilemma, should I upgrade to R5? I use R6 + 100-500 + TC2x. What are your first impressions of the upgrade?

[@raylo1017]

@@milvusotisIf you can afford it, I would highly recommend it. First impressions is the feel of the R5 over the R6. Feels better in the hand. The 45mp over the 20mp, plus the details in the photos. Big difference in eye tracking wildlife on the R5. Seems to track better. I wasn’t going to upgrade until I saw the price had dropped $900 with a free canon battery grip. I couldn’t resist

[@jan_wegener]

Awesome

[@davespencer9658]

Having the 100-500 with the R5 is a great combo. I ordered the 200-800 also, though.

[@Naamsting1]

Good insights and a really good video. I tortured myself a few times and used my EF 70 - 200 mm 2.8 IS with a 2x extender and RF adapter on an EOS-R. Approximately 1,900 grams and 38 cm in total length. The RF 200 - 800 mm is here at 2,050 grams and 31 - 41 cm. Despite trained arm and shoulder muscles, the fatigue factor is very high. Therefore, the RF 200 - 800 is only an alternative for me for predominantly stationary use, also because of the non-removable tripod collar. E.g. observing the moon. Since I bought the EF 70 - 200 2.8 IS in 2005, I have only carried it in a Colt pouch that is attached to my belt. Even with 2 additional batteries in the front pocket, it's no problem for me. For the RF 100 500 mm I could use a much shorter bag, a big improvement.

[@cowilo_]

I use my Canon R7 with the 100 to 500mm, but since the R7 has a 1.6x APSC sensor it makes the 100 to 500mm crop to 800mm. It's literally the perfect combo.

[@markmccarthy558]

I have the Sigma 150-600 for birding, does the 100-500 focus well on the R7?

[@Thomasjcolbert82]

@@markmccarthy558i tried it myself and I think there is a autofocus issue. Maybe my copy of the lens was not great. I have the 100-500MM lens and 1.4TC right now

[@salciu]

​@@markmccarthy558I do not recommend Sigma 150-600C on any Canon mirrorless. I just returned mine due to AF pulsing. It was great on DSLR

[@bjchid1]

Great video as always, Jan. Would love to hear your thoughts on the 100-500 with a 2x @ 1000mm vs the 200-800 with a 1.4x at 1120mm.

[@jan_wegener]

Ha! There’s one I could’ve done. Id see an Edge with the 200-800 in that case, even though it’s gonna be somewhat close

[@WernerBirdNature]

Be aware you'd be comparing a 600-1000 (f11-f14) with a 280-1120 (f9-f13) (which still has f10 @600mm)

[@tezster0]

I'm glad you mentioned the minimum focus distance of the 100-500. It's one aspect of the lens that's often overlooked, but can prove to be extremely useful in the field. While it isn't a substitute for a dedicated 1:1 macro lens, being able to shoot

[@jan_wegener]

Well said

[@j4kke046]

Excellently put together video my friend! Thanks 👏

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you very much!

[@andreaboyle9435]

Thank you for an excellent review of both lenses. I own the 100-500 and think I'll hang onto that for the time being. I do find the fact that it won't retract fully with a teleconverter on very frustrating, but that is my only criticism of it right now. However, I might rent the 200-800 in the future to try it out. Thanks, again!

[@quinndiaz5727]

Darn, I was REALLY hoping these comparisons would include tests on the R7 as well. I've heard differing opinions as to whether the TCs significantly lower image quality on an R7 in a way that they don't on the R5 and R6, so seeing some side -by-side comparisons with the 100-500mm with the 1.4x and the 200-800mm would have sealed the deal for me! Do you have comparisons between those two yet? Any plans for this same video, but tested with an R7 instead?

[@jan_wegener]

There’s one photo in there with the R7 and TCs. It works alright. Not as crisp as in the R5, but still pretty good. I think 1280mm without Tc is already a lot, so using the TC on the R7 is really something I’d only use if need be. If you’re not close enough with 1280mm you’re often too far away for a great photo anyhow and the Tc maybe not help too much cause things like heat haze will affect it a lot

[@quinndiaz5727]

@@jan_wegener Oh of course! I was referring to the TC with the 100-500. I wouldn't bother using it on the 200-800. Do you think the TC on the 100-500 with the R7 is worth it, or is the quality too degraded?

[@jan_wegener]

@@quinndiaz5727 ah, for that combo I think it can work well

[@quinndiaz5727]

@@jan_wegener Do you think the 200-800 would still retain better image quality? Sorry to bother, thanks for all the info!

[@jan_wegener]

@@quinndiaz5727 similar

[@marcuscaruana6772]

What do you suggest for R7? Does 100-500 perform better on cropped frames?

[@jan_wegener]

The R7 performs similarly good/bad on both lenses

[@marcuscaruana6772]

@jan_wegener thanks mate. If that's the case the 200-800mm will definitely have an edge but tbh I still need to see IQ shots which are comparable to the ones by the RF 100-500

[@jan_wegener]

@@marcuscaruana6772 the ones I show are not?

[@marcuscaruana6772]

@@jan_wegener you got me convinced ! Thanks

[@michaelp9574]

Jan, you buy the 200-800? I'm unsure what I'm doing. in germany the birds are toften far away 🙂

[@tonyblake8841]

Hi Jan, happy new year. I hope you are on hi ground as you have copped a bit of weather since you brought this video out. Watch out for ticks and leeches in the humid weather. Keep safe.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks! Still in Melbourne atm, so just cold here 😂

[@tonyblake8841]

@@jan_wegener better stay there! 😎

[@JohnSwen-p6b]

For me these two lens are for two different scenarios and Jan has done a very good job with a balanced review. For briders shooting the Canon RF system the 200-800 mm is a fine lens although from my testing its sharpness does not match the bare 100-500 mm lens. Benefits of 100-500 mm: 1) better close focusing 2) lighter than the 200-800 mm 3) sharper than the 200-800 mm Benefits of the 200-800 mm: 1) Compact lens covering the 600-800 mm focal length 2) USM motor focuses faster than the Canon STM found on the 800 mm f11 lens (although the 800mm f11 is less expensive). If I already had the 100-500 mm I would keep it and consider the 200-800 mm if small birds were my subject of choice.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing. I agree

[@bjrn-einarnilsen687]

Great review Jan. And as always with some spectacular photos. I have to say that the 200-800 is very tempting. Great reach, very good sharpnes and to a very good price. Wishing you a great week, with a lot of fun, and wonderful photos. Cheers, Bjoern

[@MihaiSavuCom]

Great review, as always, touching the most important, actually ALL points for a wildlife photographer. Please don't mind if I suggest you something: to nickname the lenses to "one-to-five-hundred" and "two-to-eight-hundred", or "one-to-five" or "shorter"/"longer". I think it would be easier for you to refer to these lenses and for me as a non-native English speaker to understand you better. Thank you for this review on the most wanted tele zoom lenses.

[@GlennBartley]

I could definitely see the option of a lighter weight kit.....R5 + 200-800 + smaller tripod (monopod?) and flex shooter pro head....The weight savings here would be pretty nice!

[@dank3599]

Howdy Jan. I very much appreciate your gear reviews. I've got the 200-800 on order now. I've noticed in your 200-800 reviews (And the reviews of others) complaints about the amount of throw required to zoom in and out. Since you're shooting handheld, I'd like your opinion if you still feel that this is an issue if you rotate the lens foot to the top of the lens and support the lens body with your left hand instead. It seems to me it would be much easier to zoom without the lens foot in the way. Cheers.

[@jan_wegener]

I actually found it very hard to zoom that way. I usually shoot with the foot up, but on this lens it’s easier to work with the foot in my hand

[@dank3599]

@@jan_wegener Thanks for the reply.

[@michaellewis5921]

I already own the wonderful RF 100-500 lens (partially on your recommendation after watching some of your initial videos about it) and I must say it has been excellent for me. I shoot primarily landscape, and my bag has the RF 14-35L, the RF 24-105 f/4 L, and the RF 100-500L, giving me 14 to 500mm inclusive. I find that I can now also shoot some wildlife with the RF 100-500 as well, which is also of interest to me. Using the 100-500 with a teleconverter is cumbersome though, so I am not thinking to go in that direction. So if I continue to get more serious about the wildlife shooting I could imagine perhaps a 200-800 in the future. But as you say, I would see that as an additional lenses and not as an RF 100-500 replacement. I like the fact that I can fit all 3 lenses into my existing bag, even if the RF 100-500 ism mounted on camera, something that would not be at all possible with the 200-800. Your very extensive comparisons in the video were extremely helpful inb really nailing down the performance and handling differences between these lenses for wildlife shooting. As always, another great job!

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing and glad you liked the video

[@carteryyz]

thank you! im getting my first telephoto lens for my R7. Since im not looking to own too many lenses, as I'm more of a hobbyist, the 200-800 seems perfect for me.

[@jefferyrobbins3468]

Fantastic review, Jan! Thanks very much for this. So many great images from in the field. Based on the images you showed, and comparisons by other KZbinrs, I'd say the 2-8 is ever so slightly sharper compared to the 1-5 +1.4x when the photographer is the same distance from the subject. However, I could see the slight amount of fringing in the photo you showed which was taken with the 2-8 (and in another review as well). So a tradeoff there in regards to IQ between the 2 lenses. Perhaps the slight fringing can also be removed in post? Sometimes I run into wild birds that are very approachable, or land near me unexpectedly, but most of the time I need the longer end of the zoom, so my 1.4x lives on my 1-5 lens (which means that the 1-5+1.4x is too much reach at times because of its lack of ability to retract the zoom all the way). For the RARE occasions I run into when 200mm is too much reach, I always have my RF 70-200 f4 and RF 24-70 f2.8 in my backpack at my disposal because I also enjoy photographing landscapes when I'm out hiking around. Thanks again. Kind regards.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing!

[@strunam]

Thanks for the fantastic review Jan. You have aided and abetted this newish hobby of mine with your vast video catalogue featuring all facets of photography. Duade also had a hand in this as did a few others. I shoot with an R7 and RF100-500 almost exclusively. I ended up purchasing the 100-500 after deciding I would not purchase the 200-800 as I normally hike or bike with the camera and lens for many hours at a time. After watching this video and comparing the images I'm going to go the 1.4x TC route. I figure the only time I need that extra reach is for the ducks and geese in the marshes and a used kayak or canoe off of Kijiji is the cheaper option. Thanks again for all your videos and taking the time to share your expertise.

[@jtbmmoc1]

Have the 100 to 500 Cannon lens since it was introduced. I’m a birdwatcher first so the flexibility of this land in the field is fantastic.. you cited the problem of caring, a large lens with a tripod that works where there is bodies of waters, marshes, etc. .. would love to see more about your post processing and KZbin KZbin video to see if it’s worth purchasing,,, buffalo, John

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

I've had the 100-500 for some time, and from what I have been told, the 200-800 is not as sharp. I'll stick with it.

[@johnscott9869]

Why not compare with the RF 800 F11 ? Which is the obvious choice for lightweight budget and long reach on a Canon mirrorless body.

[@shirishpotnis2926]

I agree with Raylo.Isold my 100-400mm is ii and 2 converters (1.4x& 2x) and purchased rf 200-800mm. I am happy with it, as I do not require to attach the converters.The only problem with rc 200-800 is, it gives too much vignetting effect @600mm and 800mm.That require to be removed in post processing.

[@jan_wegener]

There’s no lens profiles available atm. When they are that will probably be gone

[@bradh4744]

I think you’ve talked me into both. A quick question though, did you notice any autofocus delay when using the 100-500 mm lens and the teleconverters vs. without teleconverters? TIA

[@jan_wegener]

Not much if any

[@nancyross2897]

This was such a helpful comparison, thank you. I use the Rf 100-500mm as my main lens because a use I love the wider shots that include the environment that the animal is in. sometimes add the 1.4x if needed. I also have the 800mm prime, very light, and could use the converter on that lens as well, I use this a lot for small birds that I can’t get close to. I can’t see myself buying this lens, but for someone starting out in wildlife , it’s a great affordable choice. 😊

[@ianwaldren116]

If you do not own the 100-500 and converters the 200-800 is the clear choice given the similar image quality and price points.

[@johnlloyd3855]

I agree with your logic but unfortunately Canon has complicated things by making the 200-800 so difficult to purchase. After patiently waiting 5 months, I am seriously considering the 100-500 (no TC) since something is better than nothing for my trip next month.

[@mikebrownhill4662]

Anoither excellent video - thanks. It's probably me being tired, but I got a bit confused around 9:25 though where you say "even if you add the teleconverters to the 200-800mm lens, it still stays wider than the 100-500mm lens". Can you explain a bit more about this please, because the only time I can think this would be true is if you used a 2x on the 100-500 to get 1000mm and a 1.4x on the 200-800 to get the same focal length? Like I said though - I'm tired and my brain is shutting down...! Thanks.

[@boalkestrup]

1,4 x300 is 420mm on the 100 to 500. 1.4x 200 is 280 mm on the 200 to 800 mm lens . 😊

[@jan_wegener]

On the wide end the 200-800 is wider than the 100-500 with TCs

[@mikebrownhill4662]

@@jan_wegener Thanks. I've slept now and it makes perfect sense! I think I was confusing "wide" focal length with "wide" aperture...

[@mikebrownhill4662]

@@boalkestrup Thanks! I was tired and when I heard "wider" I was thinking aperture, not focal length! My bad - thanks again...

[@RebeccaFang-i6b]

where did 1.4*300 pop out from? With a 1.4 TC it becomes a 140-700

[@cathco9]

The review I've been waiting for. Thank you so much, Jan. You've given lots of detail with great explanations. Lots to think about.

[@oje101]

Which of the two would you take for the Canon R7? I already have the 70-200 2.8...

[@LaytonParham]

I am next in line for the RF 200-800 at my camera store. I will be keeping both lenses. i'm excited!

[@mitchconn7712]

Thank you for the great advice…Enjoy your videos they are very informative,most of all you have a way of explaining it well.. looking forward to seeing more of your videos in the coming year of 2024..

[@marcushellyer6502]

I got 'em both - and am keeping 'em both!

[@jan_wegener]

same :)

[@frankdhermain8996]

Thank you Jan, excellent practical review as usual. I think I'll keep my 100-500 as main lens, the 200-800 is too long and heavy, better take my 500 f/4 when weight and room in the bag are not a problem. As you know, birds in France are not as tame as in Australian, and of course I need an extra range. But it's usually the combo R7 100-500 which is the most versatile and good enough, despite a lot of autofocus issues on a lot of pictures. Anyway, there is usually some very sharp pictures, may be one out of 15, and I'm happy with that. But when subjects are close enough, R6 and 100-500 are even better indeed. I've got more issues with my recently bought 1.4 RF converter. I have to work on it, previous test with a friend's extender were pretty good, even in the heat of July. May be an issue with mine. Anyway, birds are not the only wonders in Nature, and when it comes to lizards, for instance, the short minimum focus of the 100-500 is a great advantage, and reversely, it would be a great loss with the 200-800. And happy new year, you're already in 2024, and not me !

[@steveparent8788]

This video is exactly what we were expecting. You nailed it again Jan!

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you!

[@TessaMurray-r8e]

Wow - great and very thorough review! Thanks. I'll stick to the 100-500mm + 1.4x TC because it's just small enough to put in a backpack and take hiking (or even on my bike). I'm also really horrible to my gear and frequently use it in damp and or dusty conditions so the better weather sealing is important to me. However if I was buying a telephoto lens now it would be an almost impossible decision. A few friends either already have it or are seriously considering it so it will be really interesting to see it in real life.

[@agroverphotography101]

Thank you for the comparison. I'm waiting for the 200-800 lens to ship/arrive. I was interested to hear of auto focus trouble with the R7. I almost sent the R7 back thinking it was me, but decided to stick it out as I like the extra reach of the crop sensor. But sometimes the missed shots drive me a little crazy and I use the R5 instead and just crop the photo. Excellent shots by the way.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing!

[@mstrathmore]

Thanks Jan, excellent review as always. I have the 100-500 & 2x on a R5 so I’ll probably stick with that, but you’ve answered exactly the question that I was wondering about! Even though I use my current lens mostly at the long end for wildlife photography, what it really comes down to is just how good that lens is with the 2x while retaining the ability to capture something wide at 100mm. Of course, this will not stop me trying to justify the 200-800 😊…

[@isotechimages.9130]

I held off on the 100/500 due to lack of focal length & finally it has paid off as l could not have afforded the 200/800 if l had already purchased the 100/500.

[@thimoschreiber4275]

I haven’t tried the 200-800 yet but i tried the 100-500 fore a week and will say that for me the 200-800 is unnecessary. I shoot mainly with my R7 wich means i get 160-800mm on the 100-500mm. The 1.2m minimal focusdistance and size of the lens is such a big advantage for me that i just wouldnt even consider changing. Even if i want more range i can put on the 1.4 TC which is easyer to store in a bag than just a big lens. I also think that i have more light on the R7 at f/7.1 800mm on the 100-500 than with the 200-800. But i first have to try out the 200-800 bevor i make a decision because the thaught about 1792mm with the 200-800 on the R7 with 1.4 TC is just, funny?

[@keeskraaijeveld4704]

Hi Jan. Great video again. Top. Great video again!! I can't make a decision to improve my bird photography (close by, far and BIF). I have a R7 and the RF 100-500 + 1.4. Going for a mirrorless camera (R5 or the coming up 1) or going for the RF 200-800. Do you have some advice? Is the 200-800 "overdone" having the 100-500 + 1.4 already?

[@andreas_rr]

for me, the 200-800 will be perfect. at the low end, i've got the 24-240 as my default lens, and i can just agree, the difference between 100 and 200mm (or 105 and 240 even more so) is HUGE. But so is the difference between 500 and 800mm. My only consideration is werther i might want to add the x2 TC too, because 1600mm might come in handy, and the TC just adds to the versatility at decently low cost and weigth.

[@jan_wegener]

The 2x TC is alright on it, but I’d expect it to not be that good at greater distances and the tiny AF box may become an issue then too.

[@andreas_rr]

@@jan_wegener yes, I've figured the AF box and especially the F/18 are gonna be drawbacks to be taken into account, but honestly i'm only considering the x2, while the x1,4 has in my eyes too little benefit (especially since it costs around ¾ of the x2). Quality loss won't be that big of a deal, as the 200-800 would be my best lens, and even with the losses, it's easily on par with my 800 F/11. I'm still undecided overall whether I "need" the range, but i really enjoy taking pictures of the moon, sunsets etc and working extreme contrast (basically backlit silhouettes and stuff like that). When i'll have the 200-800, i'll see how i use it and how often a TC would be advantageous, and since it's not fixed F/11, i can set it to F/18 and take that into consideration. And if i like the idea, i might get the TC at a later date. 700€ (without any discount) and i think 600g are definitely well spent (and light enough) considering what it adds to a 2500€ lens.

[@philipgowdy]

I found this to be an excellent review, answering many of my questions about this lens. Wishing you in advance Happy New Year and keep up the super work. Regards from the Uk.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks, you too!