RF200-800 vs RF100-500 + 1.4? Which one is the better option for YOU? Real World Comparison

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You can buy both lenses here (Affiliate Links): Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 L IS: bhpho.to/45FriR5 Canon RF200-800 f/6.3-9 IS: bhpho.to/4722bZm

[@gabririn7266]

Thank you so much , great video and Channel!. I have r5 with 100-500 and 1,4x and I'm very pleased with the result. Better sharpness between 600 and 800 vs 100-550+1.4x makes me wonder if I have to pull the trigger to buy the 200-800.

[@GuyTurenne]

Excellent comparison of the 200-800 vs. 100-500 + 1.4XTC. I have been looking at comparison videos and this is the best I've seen so far.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@jeffolson4731]

Great comparison video. I have both lens. I have had my RF 200-800 for 12 days now, got it on December 14. I have used the lens on both my R5 and my R7 and have gotten very good results on both. Normally what I do is I start with my RF 100-500 on my R5 and the RF 200-800 on the R7. I like the I get everything from 100mm to 1280mm with this combination. For birds in flight, or birds really close, I use the R5 and RF100-500. I also use this when I want to include more of the environment. I live in the Puget Sound area of Washington State, USA, and have only had one sunny day with all the rest being overcast or rainy. I have used Topaz AI to clean up most of my low light images.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Sounds like a good kit! Have fun!

[@twenty3_co_uk]

I have an the last Ef 100-400. Do I keep that and buy the rf 200-800 ? For my r5. I'm also looking at the Ef 600 F4. As though I'm fixed at 600 they are so cheap to buy now.

[@windycross]

I find it interesting that comparative reviews of these lenses use the 45Mp FF R5, when many of the users of these lenses will actually be pairing them with cameras having very different pixel densities, namely the 24Mp FFs like the R6ii & R8, and the 32.5Mp APS-C R7, which has a pixel density equivalent to an 83Mp FF camera. With those very different cameras, the differences between the two lenses become a lot clearer: - The extra sharpness, & light (larger aperture = less noise & diffraction) of the 100-500L better feed the smaller pixels of the R7; & allow cropping that more than compensates for its shorter reach. - The longer reach of the 200-800 @ 800 gives larger images on the FF, low Mp, cameras, and their larger pixels enable better use of the narrow apertures of the lens, by showing less noise & hiding diffraction, but the images do not crop as well as those taken with the R7 & 100-500, for obvious reasons. We have been using similar combos (R7+100-500 & R6i/ii+RF800/11) for some years now, and find the results very comparable. The R6ii will also take the 1.4xTC well with the 800/11 (& by extension, the 200-800), as it does not push the noise or diffraction too high. So if you are looking to pair these lenses with anything other than an R5, please bear these facts in mind. IMO the R5 is a great "compromise" camera on pixel density, which Canon have further enhanced with some special features giving it low noise & high DR, so it works well with very different types of lens; but the more extreme cameras (in terms of pixel density) that don't have all those extra capabilities (& therefore lower price) are better paired with lenses suited to their own characteristics.

[@tonyesposito9602]

Brilliant video Fabian, this is exactly the sort of video I was waiting for Thank you very much.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@jeffgaboury3157]

Thank you Fabian. Your reviews and comparisons are extremely detailed and informative. I just received my 200-800 earlier this week and yesterday was my first day shooting it (with my R8). I'm blown away by the combination! Being on a budget, the 100-500 was simply out of my reach financially, so it was an easy decision for me. Still, the 100-500 would be amazing. I see some second-hand ones are coming down in price a bit, finally. So maybe "some day." It'd make a nice lighter weight option for me, although I do have the RF 100-400 for a more portable option. Still, I am very pleased with the 200-800 and can't wait to do more birding with it!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have fun with the RF200-800

[@jeffgaboury3157]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I surely will!!! 😄

[@kennethlui2268]

Thank you for your hard work. I am glad to hear from you that 600-800 mm on the RF 200-800 is sharper than the 700 mm on the RF 100-500 lens.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@matthewbrookes8561]

Thank you Fabian, would love to see you compare both on the R7. I'm looking to buy either the 500 or 200-800

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Unfortunately I don’t own an R7, so I could only test it in my R10 and R5

[@TKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTK4]

Using a crop sensor camera I would select the 100-500mm. Your effective focal length would be 160-800mm because of the 1.6x crop factor and you won’t be dealing with the same corner sharpness as full frame. The only annoyance for myself would be if you changed from crop to full frame and decided to use a teleconverter; the less than 2x zoom range and increased storage size without removing the teleconverter. Hope this helps!

[@JoeMaranophotography]

Why not get an OM1 or G9ii instead? R7 has a useless electronic shutter and those lenses are more expensive than mft?

[@thor9722]

I already used RF200 800mm for a week with shooting almost 500 pics of small birds and squirrels, I really liked the image quality especially sharpness between 600mm and 800mm, shallower back ground looks nice, slight color fringing wasn't a problem at all, auto focus is fast. Only issue for me is that it is hard to hand hold for a long time, it hurts my wrist after holding it 1+ hours (RF200 800 might require a heavy solid stable tripod if you do not plan to handhold it). I also using it in dripping raining and humidity weather, the weather sealing is very well! It is a really nice lens with this price. My opinion is if you already have RF100 500, get a 1.4 extend might be good enough there is no reason to replace it with 200 800, but if you do not have super tele zoom lens, this lens will be a better choice than 100 500 especially you already have something like 70 200 2.8. Or you can get both if there is no budge limit :)

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I agree that for many the RF200-800 will be the better choice because of the extra reach

[@dayeah765caoni3]

I’m using my Olympus kit for purposes like yours. Mzuiko 100-400, light weight and weather sealed. Costs less than rf 200-800 with the same reach albeit thicker depth of field

[@maxidrivemaxidrive4330]

Been using the 100-500 on R7 and still debating whether to get this new lens or just the 1.4x. Since I always shoot handheld, the lens weight/size plus the non removable collar is a big concern. Once I upgrade to R5ii when it comes out, I may consider it.

[@thor9722]

@@dayeah765caoni3 except field depth I am not sure the noise level is same as a full frame. However there is no bad equipment as long as you get what you need, and you know what you can do with it.

[@Nature_Unboxed_0]

@@dayeah765caoni3if you pair the 200-800 on the R7 or any other apsc camera the reach is much further.

[@mobelue]

Really enjoyed your video. I shoot R5 with the 1.4 ext. Ive also programmed my front ‘depth of field’ button for instant crop. This is a feature I’m surprized more shooters don’t use. It gives my 60% more reach instantly, at my fingertips, and it usually nets me a 20 to 24mp image. Cropping also helps me with eye detect and metering. I’m holding out for what the R5 mkii might bring us with hopefully pre-capture and more megapixels. Great English. Really good stuff.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! I prefer to crop on the computer, that’s more flexible

[@crank_FPV]

Thanks man great tip! Will be using this?

[@mobelue]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography That’s what most people say. You are probably not using that button I’m speaking of. Try reprogramming it for crop mode. In the RVF or the display, it’s better to use your right index finger scrolling on top. The default settings aren’t set to allow this. You’ll need to go elsewhere in the menu to allow for this to switch from mode to mode. I watched a vid on this. It will help your eye auto focusing and your metering. This set-up will allow you to switch back and forth easily. Give it a try.

[@AstralviewsUK]

How do you figure that a 1.6x crop on the R5 is giving you 20-24MP? It's 17.48MP.

[@gabedamien]

R5 in crop mode is 18MP. Which is still perfectly usable IMHO but not 20-24.

[@stevewhiteley9249]

Thanks, Fabian - a helpful video. I’ve been using an R6 for a couple of years and would have got the 200-800 if it had been available back then. For me, the 100/500 on full frame was not quite enough so I got the R7 when that came out, which gives a useful cropped field of view, on a very detailed sensor. It made more sense to me than using a teleconverter on the 100-500 on full frame, with all the disadvantages you explained. Having said all that, I much prefer full frame for everything except wildlife so, if I was buying now, I’d probably get the 200-800 and stay entirely full frame. That fixed tripod foot would really annoy me, though.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

[@FQ8]

I just picked up the RF 1.4x for my 100-500L...excellent comparison...TY!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@paulfarrell4039]

Thanks for a great impartial review. I currently use 7D II EF 100-400mm II for birds 100% and i am looking for more focal length for open country/waterbirds. You have convinced me to go with the 200-800mm and an R5. So I am covered for distant birds and can use the R5 with the old EF 100-400m II in the forest.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have fun!

[@Byrkster]

I am just starting out. I bought a eosR8, already looking to upgrade. However I just wanted to say thank you for a great video. Very detailed and very understandable with great examples. I subscribed. Hopefully I will be able a decision on which camera I would like to upgrade to... Thank you again!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks and have fun!

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

hi Fabian thanks again for this comparison. I am now using the RF 100-500 with the 1.4 converter standard on my R3. I am very pleased with the results. although it remains a heavy combination (2.8 Kilograms). I have the RF 200-800 in back order. I am also considering switching to the Micro 4/3 system from Om-systemen due to the high weight. But I I know the benefits of the Canon full frame system and the high quality photos are a blessing to me, something I don't know about the M 4/3 system. For now I'll take the cat out of the tree. I Rf 200-800 It won't come to the Netherlands until the end of February, so I still have plenty of time to finally decide what I'm going to do. Thanks for this clear video.

[@davetv8171]

I have the R3/R7 with the 100-500 and the new 24-105. Micro 4/3 is actually pretty great. I had the OM-1 and sold it after I got the G9II for the RF 24-105 2.8. I wish I could’ve kept the OM-1 but I needed that lens for its versatility and I mainly use the micro 4/3 for birds which isn’t bad if you get the 150-400 or the Panasonic Leica 200 2.8 with 1.4 tc (which is included). That’s about a 600mm equivalent. If I were you, I’d stick with your canon combo and possibly wait for your 200-800 to test out. In about a year I’m sure Olympus/OM System will release an OM-2. They’re not very good at marketing so it will come out of nowhere when it does.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Uff, end of February is a long time to wait!

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Compared to eternity, 2/3 months is not long 😂

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

Excellent review. Sounds spot on to me. 200-800 for my uses for sure.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@larrycoonrod5563]

Thank you. Great comparison. Helped me make up my mind to go with the 200-800

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@onnonugteren2935]

A very good summary, well done. :-) just like to add the RF f4.0 70-200 as a choice, a lens underestimated a lot for nature photography. And indeed the RF 5.6-8 100-400 extra with the I think very good RF 200-800 here presented. You cannot have everything in one lens with other words. Greetings from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren photographer and filmmaker.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@stephen25uk]

Outstanding video. Very thorough and objective. It has helped my decision to buy the 200-800, but it could be a long wait.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@cathco9]

Thank you, Fabian. Great comparison with plenty of detail.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@noelchignell1048]

Thanks Fabian, I've just bought an R6 mark ii and was considering selling my EF 100-400 mark ii and buying the RF200-800, but I was wondering if I should spend a bit more on the RF100-500. This has helped me decide that the 200-800 will be better for my bird photography and also cheaper😎 I really liked your video but one suggestion I have is you throw away the stuffed bird and use a large feather for your testing as it's much easier to see differences in detail with a feather and of course it's much more like a part of a bird than a toy is. 😎 Thanks Noel from New Zealand

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks for your comment

[@Orexll]

Absolutely amazing review. Convinced me to keep my 200-800mm

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@ashoksharma8927]

I have seen many comparison videos of 100-500+1.4x entender vs 200-800, I can definitely say that this is the best comparison video, I had bought 100-500 before the launch of 200-800, but in future whenever I buy my secondary camera I would prefer to have 200-800 along with it.,,, Love from india.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks a lot 😊

[@robertbohnaker9898]

Hi Fabian. For me the lesson is clear here . New improved technology is always evolving quickly in electronics, and this technology appears in newer models. Secondly, technology also always moves down in cheaper models over time. Clearly, manufacturers want to sell more units to the beer and spaghetti crowd , so they move more features in these models more quickly over time. The L lenses will always be available ( with all the bells and whistles) for those with thicker wallets and the exclusivity they can revel in. As a peasant, this works fine for me. Merry Christmas. Great Review.😊

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@iechega]

Thanks for this review. I have the 100-500 and the 800f11. I find that I only need the extra reach in feeders and such and in most cases those turn up to be somehow poor lighting that would only work with the expensive primes

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I also don’t need more than 700mm very often

[@KalliatTValsaraj]

Very good review and quite appreciated. I do feel, however, from my experience thus far between the two 100-500 seem to have better AF capability than the 200-800. I also feel that the bulkiness of the 200-800 limits its use in the field for birders such as myself. 🙏🙏

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks for your input

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Excellent comparison and great video. Both lenses are great and the 200-800 should be come one of Canons most popular lenses

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I think so as well

[@Harry-tm2bt]

Thanks Fabian for another awesome video. Going for the lighter 100-500 as it suits me more.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You‘re welcome!

[@fernandodelgiovo]

Hello from Brazil! Nice find this comparation!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thank you!

[@rickfarber4243]

Thanks for a thorough an unbiased review. One other application for the 100-500 is as a portrait lens. True, we usually want a faster lens, but 100mm is a nice focal length for portraiture. 200 is a bit long.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, that’s true. I focussed mainly on wildlife

[@nordic5490]

Sports illustrated has always used 200-400mm to photograph their models.

[@peterb.7437]

I have the EF100-400 II, I am going to get rid of that lens and will buy RF100-500mm for my wife and for me I will get the 200-800mm. Thanks for the comparison Fabian very much appreciated.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You‘re welcome

[@PabloFuenteAguirre]

Thanks for the video. I own a Canon r6 Mrk II and an EF 70-200 2.8 (I use an RF adapter). I mainly shoot rockets launches (a lot of them by night) and birds. After watching the video, I am not sure what to do! thanks for your opinion given my scenario.

[@Anythingbutfish-cc6lc]

Great video, liked and subscribed. I’ve had my 200-800 for a while now, great lens although find it blows out highlights quite a bit.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I guess this is really a weakness under some light conditions

[@marximus4]

I will definitely be buying the 200-800 ASAP. I have the RF 100-400 and the EF 500 II, and the overlap doesn't bother me. I think it'll be the perfect filler: more reach than the 100-400, more packable than the 500.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Hope you will get yours soon

[@sinaps_photography]

Thanks for your great comparison! What was your camera in this test?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

R5

[@sinaps_photography]

If it is possible, do the same job with R7.

[@rafalkonieczny]

Thank you, very nice review and very hard choice, especially owning 100-500 already.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@DjePakoupe]

Thank you for this video. I think many of us are using R5 + 100-500 + 1.4 combo and are wondering if it is worth buying this 200-800. My feeling is that 100-500+1.4 vs 200-800 is very similar. I shoot mainly birds and I ALWAYS have the extender put on. So my question is more about the use of the 1.4 extender with the 200-800. Did you try it? It would be awesome if you could make a little video to show how the 200-800 performs with the 1.4, especially with the R5 (I hd the opportunity to try the 100-500+1.4 with an R7 and, in my opinion, the result was good only if the subject fills the whole surface of the sensor). If the 200-800 performs well with the 1.4, it would be a great complementary lense to the 100-500 especially for shooting close portraits of animals. Cheers from France and merry Christmas!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! Did you see my RF200-800 review (I posted it about a week before this one here)? I talk about TC performance and show some examples there

[@DjePakoupe]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yes thank you, I just watched it. Very instructive. Also, Jan Wegener just released a comparison between 100-500+1.4 et 200-800. His conclusions are very similar to yours. For sure, I would not carry both lenses in my backpack. So 100mm longer reach with the R5 and the possibility to add the 1.4 extender sounds very attractive for small birds (for big birds, it is non-sens if you shoot at 1000mm. The atmoshpere, at this reach, ruins the picture). And then, I'm not very sure why I should keep the 100-500. But I love my 100-500... Arghhhhh!!!!

[@deanjelcic9299]

I honestly cant believe that 200-800 is little sharper. 100-500 is premium lens and in many test came ahead of 200-800 🤷 Still great video, you did a lot of job here 😊

[@blisteringbooks2428]

I have the Sigma 150-600, with the 1.4 I can get 840, only the smooth range and better connectivity of the RF mount is calling out to me, it is just the financial burden that is holding me back. Lovely video, you have the same problems I do with small birds, they do not sit still long enough.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

The AF and IS of the Sigma 150-600C is quite bad though

[@davidsharkman]

Excellent comparison, Fabian

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@Joya5545]

Super in-depth review,thanks Fabian, would you recommend a monopod for the RF200-800? Cannot wait for my lens to show up

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I prefer to handhold it, it’s rather lightweight

[@woozyjoe4703]

Good review. Most helpful. Thank you

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear

[@barryfrost4399]

Thanks. Very methodical comparison.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You‘re welcome

[@ruimanu6934]

Merci Fabien pour la traduction..... Joyeux Noël et nouvel an pour toi et ta famille

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Merci!

[@WernerBirdNature]

Hi Fabian, thanks for this interesting comparison 👍 For people blessed with a 600/4, I can see the 100-500 is a bit more complementary. However for slightly more modest birders like me who always crave for more reach, both these zooms can actually be pretty complementary. The 100-500 remains the best choice for the dimmest light, and when you can be close enough like in bird hide or when I'm visiting a puffin island next summer. But the moment I now would add the 1.4x (making it f8 - f10), I'd probably better switch to the 200-800 when it eventually arrives. And clearly getting a 280-1120 (when needed) sounds smarter than instead getting the 2x to have a 600-1000 ;-)

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I agree 😊

[@WernerBirdNature]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Danke Fabian 😊

[@keeskraaijeveld4704]

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?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Hmm, hard to say. For BIF the R6 II would be probably the best choice, since it has the best AF and faster framerate

[@glennalexon1530]

Awesome work. Love your videos.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@simonbrown8087]

An excellent presentation, many thanks.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@ginaooiphotovideo4447]

GREAT REVIEW! MUCH APPRECIATED!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear 😊

[@jonathanlaury2585]

I have the 100-500 on my R5 and from what I have seen it has better overall image quality. That's not to say I wouldn't like to have the 200-800 but the 100-500 just seems to produce a bit better photos.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

To me the RF200-800 seemed slightly sharper if you need more than 500mm

[@actylise]

Hello Fabian, great content !! In your opinion , which is better , canon R7 wit 100-500 or canon r6 mk2 with 200-800 for bird photography ? thank you !

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

If weight is not so much of an issue, I would go for the R6 II and 200-800

[@SurreyAlan]

Thank you for showing the length with the convertor on the 100-500, now it's just the weight advantage to be traded off against the reach. If you've recently bought an R series and hit an approved retailer at the right time the 100-500 can cost a lot less, 27 December 2023 John Lewis £2527 and you can claim £700 cashback plus £300 if you've just bought a camera, only 1 left now though.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, here we also have a cashback option for the RF100-500

[@krahnosdragon]

I currently have the 100-500 RF and also a 1.4x extender. I hate using the extender, it's annoying to get on and off, and forces the lens to be almost totally extended when it's on, making it awkward to carry. I prefer the naked lens. The 200-800 is tempting with its extra range, but it's also much larger and heavier, and won't fit in my bag easily. I guess I should stick with what I have, until I see a sale on the 200-800. I'd love that extra range, but the 100-500 is so darn versatile, I can almost use it as a walk around lens and still have range to get wildlife shots. It's amazing how much range it actually has, especially at the lower end. Maybe the only answer is to buy all of the lenses and pull a wagon for all of the gear.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yeah, I never manage to fit all the gear I want to use in my backpack 😅

[@timothyroe5020]

Fabian, i just watched your review, i am still undecided bit leaning toward the 100-500 now as I shoot sports a lot and at night under stadium lights. So, the better light capabilities plus the smaller size and weight would be an advantage in being able to move or get around qucker. Still not sure. I am not a pro but i think i can get a refurbished 100-500 for a few hundred more than the 200-800. I have a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, so i was leaning toward the 200-800 allowing me to go seamlessly from 24 -800 with only 3 lenses, which is still a major good point for me. Im not sure when i would use anything over 500 mm. I am jist getting back into photography after a 30 year hiatus and the biggest lens i had back then was 500mm. So, i am leaning toward the 100-500 more and having the converter if i really need to go beyond 500. Thoughts?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Go with the 100-500, it seems to be the far better for your use case

[@erkkisiekkinen286]

Thank for an excellent review ,now when I finally got rf 200-800mm ,I am lucky to have them both and also 1,4 ext. My first impressions with RF 200-800mm are very good -the lens performs superb also with 1,4 TC. It seems that the 1,4 ext gives a slightly warmer color cast on both lenses. Same indications have been also on other reviews. Cheers

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks for sharing. I didn’t notice that, but maybe I was not „picky enough“

[@spinnetti]

The 200-800 is the last on my list to get. I have the 28-70 F2, the 70-200 F2.8 and this new 200-800 will round out the "Holy Trinity" as Jared Polin says... I'm strongly tempted by the 85 F1.2 also but I don't actually need this stuff as I'm a total amateur lol.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Sounds like a nice combination 😊

[@sthoerner]

Hi Fabian, now with the new rf 70-200 z lense with extender capability i think the 200-800 would be a great combo. What Do you think?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Definitely a nice combo! I guess for many people that use the RF200-800, the 70-200/4 might be a nice cheaper option

[@lvho2402]

Thanks for the helpfull videos. What about RF800 f11 vs RF200-800 ? I own the RF100-500 and the RF800f11. I "shoot" mostly small and shy birds... so always at 500mm... and I always use the 100-500 as the quality is much better... I have the impression after this video, that I better drop the RF800f11 and buy the new RF200-800, better then buying an extender 1.4x. What do you suggest ?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I would do the same!

[@garymeredith2441]

Great comparison here Fabian . Is it possible to use the 2.0 teleconverter on the 100 - 500 I know the aperture would be totally out of control @ F14 but if you had to go a 1000 mm At least it is an option using the 100 - 500 lens .

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I didn’t use the 2x a lot with the RF100-500. i feel like I would definitely prefer the RF200-800 + 1.4

[@garymeredith2441]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thank you for the reply they're Fabian , I love your videos you do a fantastic job thank you .

[@Beaver-be8vk]

I think if you’re using a full frame the 200-800 is the choice. But I have a R7 with a crop sensor and 500mm on the L lens is almost too much. I don’t think the added reach would be as useful as some would think.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I agree! For APS-C you will probably often not need the 200-800

[@jonathanlaury2585]

I wouldn't trade the 100-500 on my R5 with the 200-800. It's a nice lens but the 100-500 produces better photos and I can crop to my hearts content with the R5 if needed.

[@Beaver-be8vk]

@@jonathanlaury2585 you know I agree with everything you said. But I learned really quick that all the butt hurts. come out of the woodwork if you say anything like that against the 200-800. It’s like hello, if I was as good as a L series they’d call it a L series and charge twice the price. Lol. And these are all people who can’t afford either. Just watch. Lol

[@jonathanlaury2585]

@@Beaver-be8vk I hear ya 100%. The 200-800 is great and I might get one eventually too but yeah, the 100-500 is just superior.

[@Beaver-be8vk]

@@jonathanlaury2585 I don’t know man. I was thinking the same thing, but now not so much. I saw a video this morning where the guy was using it and touting how great it was but when he showed his settings on his camera using an R7 it showed sub 1/100 of a second and iso 6400. I can tell you from personal experience with an R7 that those settings will give you horrific images. IOS tops out at 12800. He even admitted that he had to use denoise software. Tripod to boot. That doesn’t work for me. I’ll just do without the extra 300mm that I probably don’t need anyway

[@ViciousXUSMC]

Personally I didnt like the TC on my 100-500 I got just as much quality cropping without it (actually more quality) and it kept me from having to gimp my lens and go thru the hassle of installing it. So what this might be missing is cropping 100-500 to the same composition as the 200-800 and see if the higher "L" quality makes up for it, especially with something like the R5 @ 45MP.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Interesting. I tested my RF100-500 with and without TC (cropping) and the results with TC were better than cropping (on the R5)

[@makaikalii6859]

I have the 200-800 but still want to know what the two round buttons on the lens do?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

These are lens function buttons. You can configure them in camera

[@panomsuk397]

I use 100-500 with both R5 and R7, and sometimes add 1.4X for more reach when use with R5. It has been so annoying and feel like gradually destroy the camera mount when attaching/removing the 1.4x in and out. Also the loss on initial zoom range with the 1.4x. So my 100-500 is now almost with R7. However, the buffer of R7 is small and stop after shooting at 30fps or only less than 2 seconds even using the high speed SD card like Sony Tough. These reasons make the 200-800 becomes the 100-500+1.4x competitor. My thought is the 200-800 would be great to use with the R5 or full frame sensors when shoot the bird in flight. To use with R7, it would need more skill to keep the bird in frame when shot at 800 mm.

[@jonathanlaury2585]

You won't destroy the mount, they are made for frequent lens changes. As far as birds in flight on an R5 I would always choose the 100-500 over the 200-800. It's just a better lens for it.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I would not worry too much about the mount. But I agree that R5 + RF200-800 could be an interesting option!

[@tarjeijensen7237]

Where you live counts a lot. In Norway overcast in winter is ISO 25 600 even with a fast EF 600 F/4.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, true

[@georgemahlum6542]

Nice comparison I do not own a 600/4 any more... but now days ...I like the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 way better...Cheers

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Why do you prefer the Sony?

[@canonlensesandcameras4425]

interesting video thanks for taking the time. Bryan Carnathan seems to disagree with you on your tests he says the 100-500 is sharper. Theirs no doubt the lens gives good results but it is what it is a dark lens. I plan on doing lens tests charts to see if your real world tests match up. take care.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! I could not find the tests of Bryan. Was the RF100-500 also sharper at 700 or 800mm?

[@canonlensesandcameras4425]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I tried posting the link can you see it?

[@canonlensesandcameras4425]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography fabian I have emailed you the link

[@highanddryful]

thank you for a thourghly informative review. How many turns of the zoom dial are there on the 200-800?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Sorry, I don’t know it by heart

[@neowu2633]

where can I find the bird at 12:41?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Basically everywhere in Switzerland 😊 Periparus ater

[@neowu2633]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography thank you

[@innerforce7395]

I got recently the 500 mm and got demotivated as it came with an eye hair inside the lens and some sploches in yhe lenses in berween. Im trying to replace with another one new and hope is ok. Looks like the manufacturing quality has downed

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Oh, that doesn’t sound good 😕 I hope you will get a replacement soon

[@Helen_von_Holten]

Thanks for a great video! 👏👏

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You‘re welcome

[@erichpoole1396]

i have the 100-500 and also the 800mm f11. Should i get rid of the 800 f11 and change it for the 200-800? Are you able to do a comparison video for these two lenses?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Unfortunately I don’t own the RF800/11. but the new RF200-800 is sharper, more flexible and has much better AF. But it is more expensive and heavier

[@photobeast]

Yes.. but the issue is trying to sell it. I tried to trade mine in and B&H Photo as well as keh and mpb photos... all three offered me just over $300 for a mint condition RF 800 f11. I also own the EF 100 - 400 version 2, the RF 100 to 500, and the 500 F4. I do like having 800 mm so I just shoot my rf100 to 500 on my R7 instead of my Canon R5. B&H Photo sold me a mint condition Flawless RF 100-500 for $1900!!!

[@Burk]

Thank you for this!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@SagarDas-kw2lb]

Great review 🙏🙏🙏

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@ramcomp1362]

I am having a canon 100-400 mm on Canon r7. I want to understand if its better to go for Canon RF 1.4x extender to my existing lens or Go for Canon 200-800 mm lens. I am also looking at the budget. I do bird photography mostly. Can please tell me the pro's and Cons ? Appreciate a response.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Better image quality, AF, etc with the RF200-800. only downside: size (and cost)

[@ramcomp1362]

Thank you​@@FabianFoppNaturephotography

[@rafimmedia]

@FabianFoppNaturephotography Will the AF work with 100-500mm or 200-800mm lenses and a 1.4x extender?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes!

[@ZockerlukiLP]

What would you say if i cant really go with a teleconverter but rather would use the crop mode of my R6MKII? Do you think the Image Quality would suffer a lot on the 100-500? I am using a 100-400 right now but am thinking about upgrading to one of these two in the future

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I often find that the image quality is better when using the teleconverter instead of just cropping the picture. Especially since you end up with only 12 MP on the R6 II

[@canonlensesandcameras4425]

would you be available to come on a live stream saturday morning cst 11am or 5pm uk time trying to get people to be guests if possible?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks for inviting me. No, I don’t think I can

[@tomdoolin2415]

Thanks Fabian

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You‘re welcome!

[@3seriouss]

Here's my question - is the 200-800 with the price if I already have the 100-500? Or should I just buy the 1.4?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I was hoping that my video could help to answer this question

[@lawrencelam1820]

Hi Fabian, 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 as F7.1 ?

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

but since you're cropping in it's f11 for the r7 and 100-500

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Hmm, the R7 + RF100-500 is more compact and cheaper, but R5 + RF200-800 will give you a nicer background blur and less noise

[@luispiovani9542]

The sweet spot is 600 mm with a high MP count in the camera for a portable option. That is why the 150=600 become so popular.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, even though the new 200-800 is the same weight 😃

[@TeddyCavachon]

The 100-500mm is a great ‘walking around lens companion to my R6mkII. The 200-800 would be too heavy and cumbersome for that and for extra reach for birds have the 800mm F/11.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, the RF100-500 is much nicer for that

[@nilfarmohamed4778]

Hi there. I really appreciate your content. I'm a wildlife photography enthusiast and am looking for a very good lens that will provide excellent subject separation at an affordable price. I was planning to purchase the 100-500, and then Canon introduced the 200-800, which piqued my curiosity. I've seen all of your reviews and am very satisfied. I have two questions: 1. I own the Canon EOS R, which doesn't have auto eye focus and image stabilization. What's your advice? Is it still a good combo for capturing wonderful shots, I mean 200-800 with Canon EOS R? 2. If i ask you, RF 100-500mm or 200-800mm which one will be your choice ? I highly appreciate your advice. Thank you very much.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! I tried to cover the differences in the video. Personally, I prefer the RF100-500 because of the size - if I want reach, I take my 600/4. the EOS R certainly works, but an R6 II is much more advanced

[@oupavideo]

Could you maybe test the following: R7 with the 100-500mm vs fullframe with the 200-800mm?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Unfortunately I don’t own an R7

[@Duckstalker1340]

Can you compare 200-800mm on FF body vs 100-500mm on crop body? If you put 100-500mm on crop body you'd get 160-800mm which is very comparable to the 200-800mm on FF. Reason I asked is it would be better to purchase the 100-500mm + FF body + crop body.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I don’t have the Rf200-800 at hand at the moment

[@eldarhalilcevic2834]

My only question is: Does the 100-500mm have sharper and better Images where it is rly noticable or not so much, if it is not much noticable it is better to go for more reach

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

As shown in the video: it depends on the focal length

[@SteveTattersall]

I have a question - I already have the 100 - 500 is it worth adding the 200 - 800 or is this just extravagant?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Hmm, I would not take both with me. But maybe for some days the 100-500 makes more sense and for others the 200-800

[@FredBloggs467]

Could you do this comparison using the Canon R7?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I unfortunately don’t own an R7

[@maitreetulyatumrong1044]

Thank you ❤❤

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

You‘re welcome

[@somewhatfunny]

Great review! I have found that stopping down to f13 when using the 100-500mm + 1.4x yields impressive results. It’s not ideal, you need great lighting and perhaps a noise reduction program, but it might make a switch of lenses unnecessary if you already own the 100-500mm.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! But then you are at fault/13 and have way worse background blur compared to the f/9 of the RF200-800

[@tonyedwin2836]

How about a 70 to 200 2.8 and this 200 to 800 as a versatile combo?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I think that’s a great combo

[@vas.milivoj]

Very nice and useful review, than you. It is helping me decide to chose. As I want to get me wildilfe lens for the first time 200 800 is better option for me. IQ and focusin will be a bit worser than on 100 500, but it is more than satisfying , at least for a non pro shooter. Extrareach is what conts more. What might be its competition in the future are 3rd party lenses,once canon lets them come on. They will be cheaper at least,some even better optical quality probably. But anyways we are all hapy with ehat canon is bringing us with R series of bodies and lenses, a big step up. It is just, as many are saying, thy are like 25% ovepriced.... :/

[@vas.milivoj]

For the rest of the money differecne i might get once rf 100 400 which is light , small and still more than good lens for a non pro. It s price is actually very nice comparing what it gives.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! I think it’s quite fair priced if you look at the competition

[@vas.milivoj]

You only missed to mention zoom ring on 200 800. It needs 3, 4 hand moves ti get from 200 to 800, i saw it on other review. It is aadditiona small disadvantage of that lens comparing to L one​@@FabianFoppNaturephotography

[@ShoNuffSoulBro1]

There’s also a huge cost factor difference. The 200-800 is $1900 US, vs $2900 for the 100-500.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Might depend where you live. Here the difference is 100$ which is probably not a deciding factor for anybody

[@salciu]

​@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyI am surprised with Canon's pricing policy in Europe. 200-800 is so expensive here, all the countries have nearly same price for both lenses. It makes 200-800 a hard buying decision and something I am still debating on...

[@bodinian]

In my experience with photography, teleconverters always reduce picture quality. It's so bad that I prefer using the regular lens and cropping instead because at least I'm working with more light that way. If I want pictures of wildlife that's nervous around people I just bait them with food and stay very still.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I tested that, using the converter gave significantly better image quality than cropping

[@bodinian]

​@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyis that using a 2x teleconverter? The 2x chewed my images up.

[@edrader]

i shoot the moon at sometimes great distance and that's one of the few time i use a tc and find IQ acceptable. fpr wildlife i hate TC unless its a animal landscape type shot

[@msmith2016]

I really wish folks would stop trying to compare these lenses. They are not in the same class. As a non L lens the 200-800 lacks a super UD element and materials that the 100-500 has and will make it always optically superior. This lens would be better compared to a Tamron 60-600 or Sigma 150-600 Contemporary which it would probably outperform. So far the image samples I've seen, including those from some of my colleagues, show this lens to have some issues rendering highlights giving a contrasty and harsh look. Comparing images taken indoors under artificial lighting is not a good test.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

They are the same price, that’s why I compared them (actually the RF100-500 is a bit cheaper at the moment). And a lot of people asked me for a comparison. But I see your point

[@edrader]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography i don't see his point. i came here specifically for this comparison as did many others

[@teethtrainsandcameras2668]

Biggest downside of the 100-500 with extender is that it doesn't fit properly and you can close the lens down.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, that’s really annoying

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

Best solution is to stick the 100-500 on an R7. 800mm effective focal length with no loss of IQ. My belief is, if you can't take the shot within 800mm, you shouldn't take the shot at all.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Well, you get more noise than with full frame

[@sdufg]

if you were invading poland, which lens would you take?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

My 600/4 😅

[@MrMartin246]

If your use case is to compare the 200-800 with the 100-500+1.4x you should show us the lens in that configuration with converter attached to the zoom. You state the 100-500 is much smaller, but put the converter on it, then consider the lens does not collapse anymore, and I would like to see the end result. I suspect 1.4x+100-500 when assembled is not significantly smaller

[@boalkestrup]

he did that

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I did all of that in the video 😊

[@MrMartin246]

Thanks, I saw that. I wrote the comment too quickly. Cheers@@FabianFoppNaturephotography

[@d_image_planet]

very open comparison

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks