Just picked up the Nikon 180-600 for my Z8 - before I saw the video. I have a Canon R5 and R6ii and old 100-400L mk1. So before getting the Nikon 180-600 I was thinking about the 100-500 or 200-800 but I decided to first get the Nikon 180-600. I had the 200-600 Sony. Your review was well balanced (except perhaps when including APC camera bodies in such a lens comparison, but I do see how it is perhaps a fair point to consider). For canon system, with EF to R adapter, I think the EF100-400L IS Mk 2 lens (not the mk1 lens) is probably still better value than the 100-500L with image sharpness very close to the 100-500 (ok shorter by 100mm) and way better than the 100-400 you have. However, you failed to note an important feature of the lenses --- that is the image stabilization performance. I got rid of the Sony 200-600 due to the poor image stabilization with Sony A7IV. The old Canon 100-400L Mk1 on R6II even beats out the Sony 200-600 even when both at 400mm. I just could not get stable video hand held with the Sony 200-600. The Nikon beats the Canon 100-400L Mk1 and Sony 200-600 hands down. I have not had a chance to play with Canon 100-500 or 200-800... but from what I have seen online, the Nikon image stabilization especially when in video modes seems to be the best performing in most comparison videos I have seen online. A negative I see in Nikon Z8 and 180-600 for stills shooting is a slight jump in the view finder when taking images on the Nikon Z8 with VR in normal mode... I need to investigate if the Nikon Z8 and 180-600 works better in VR sport mode... What is you opinion on the image stabilization ranking with say full frame bodies with IBIS?
Thank you! APS-C bodies are very important to me. I prefer to use them for wildlife. As I mentioned in the description, two areas I did not rank these lenses on are stabilization and focus speed. If I did rank them for stabilization, I would probably have put the Sony lens at or near last.
A great roundup and valuable information shared especially considering you've used all these lenses. How good/fast are the AF motors or systems of these lenses, along with the cameras gear's AF system - How many hits and misses along with critical focus achieved? Thanks.
The R7 + 100-500 combo is what pushed me over the edge to sell my D500 and 200-500 and jump over to Canon. The older I get and the more my abused body complains the more weight becomes a big deciding factor. Good video Phil. I was going to say some mean things just as a joke but thought some may not get my sense of humor. Truly, this was a helpful video.
Excellent video. I have the R7 and the 100 - 500 mm lens for the past 12 months. Previously I used the 7D Mkii with a 300mm paired with a 1.4 extender as well as the f4 600mm lens, also used with a 1.4 extender if required. I waited until a lot of bird photographers were happy with the Mirrorless setup, sold my DSLR and the lenses and bought the new setup. I am very happy I made the change as I travel regularly by plane and just never could take the 600mm lens, now I have a setup which is easier to travel with and I am very satisfied with image quality and sharpness, even with a 1.4 extender added. Your analysis just confirmed my decision was the correct one not only 12 months ago but it is still right up there.
Phil, Thanks for all the work you put into this... the results of Heather's amazing gallinule shots convinced me to stay with the more compact 100-500L lens over the 200-800...
@PhilThach without doubt, the 100-500L trumps the 200-800 between 200-500mm... but adding the 1.4x, you can argue that 420-700 is pretty close between the 2 lenses (as others have reported). But the deal breaker for me was the unremovable foot which also adds unnecessary weight.
I had on my R7 the awesome 100-500. I sold it for the 200-800. Now I’m planning to buy a 100-500 someday. You’re right, I lost details on my photos. But I’ll still keep my 200-800 because now there is no problems with distance. 99% of my photos taken with the 100-500 were shot at 500mm and most of the time heavily cropped. Good review, thanks
Enjoyed your comparison, Phil! The 100-400 is indeed great for "macro," especially with extenders. It gets up to .58X and .83X with the 1.4X and 2X, respectively!
Hi Phil, Nice comparison but it misses one important for me aspect -comparison of the image stabilization in handheld video and more specifically during pans. I have Sony and the IS in video is terrible, tried RF 100-500 and was in another league. Heard that the IBIS in video of the Nikon and 180-600 is the best among the full frame lenses. Haven't seen video comparisons unfortunately. I'm trekking a lot and don't carry most of the time heavy tripod and fluid head so the handheld video stabilization is very important for me. Do you have any impression of the video stabilization between 180-600 and 100-500 or perhaps can compare it in future video ?
Its good to hear the 180-600 is so good. I have the A1+200-600 and do get very dissapointed by the chromatic aberation. I thought it was just my copy of the lens but have recently seen chromatic aberation on a friends images. Its obviously a common flaw. I also find the stabliation of the 200-600 to be not that great. How does the 180-600 stabilisation compare? I am tempted to get a Z8+600 PF as that seems like a killer combo will you be getting that?
I do see the CA on the 200-600 all the time. For example I shot all morning with it recently wide open and had no issues. It was overcast that day. But, as you know, when the CA shows, it really shows. I think the 180-600 has better stabilization than the 200-600. In fact, I believe the 200-600 has the worst stabilization of any of these lenses. As for the Z8 and the 600PF. I'm sure that is great but if I were to buy a Z*, I think I would stay with the more versatile 180-600. They are both 6.3 at 600 but the 600PF is stuck there all the time. It is smaller and lighter so that's nice but I'll carry some extra weight for the ability to zoom when I need to. Thanks for watching, David!
I love the Canon RF 100-400, Nikon Z 100-400 and I think I would rather have a Telephoto Zoom that is the best for the Buck which would be the Nikon 180-600mm. Unfortunately I am having my roof replaced and going to wait a little longer to get my hands on that lens. I like your rating system for these lenses. I have looked at Tamron and Sigma lenses also and the only thing I can say is that it is wonderful being alive to see all of the great gear that is coming out. Cheers!
Phil, great video showing these comparisons. I am glad that I tried the Sony A6700 / Sony 200-600 Lens Combo last year. But I should have stuck to my original plan last summer to buy the Nikon 180-600. As you know I have sold my A6700 rig for some of the reasons you mentioned in this video and went back to Nikon Bird Rig. I am very happy with the 180-600 and now especially coupled to the Nikon Z8. I agree that Nikon needs to come up with an APSC body so the 180-600 can have other options. I hear the 1.4x Tele works rather well on the 180-600 but I am not really sure that is needed. I still have the Nikon D500 and the 500PF Lens. I am anxiously waiting to see what all these Nikon Z6iii rumors really materialize into this year.
Well done. Real review from a real world user. With these budget lenses, sample variation could be a big factor for IQ though. Whenever the D500 replacement comes it will be great with the Nikon's great telephoto options.
Thanks for putting this togehter, it' very helpful for future decision making - the 100-500 still holds up quite well, and while the external zoom maybe isn't as solid, it adds to it's transportability a lot: I own the 70-200, and in real life the small size and weight so far did outweigh the drawbacks of an external zoom mechanism for my use cases.
I agree! When Heather and I go to Canada on our honeymoon the only telephoto lens I’m taking is the 100-500. It fits in my smallest camera bag and I can store it under the seat on the airplane.
@@PhilThach When I go on a photo walk in the nature all I take is a Lowepro "Toploader" designed for max one body with a 70-200, nothing more. Spare batteries and cards, an optional filter ans a cable release are in this package. What a great companion! When I go on dragonflies, etc. at the ponds' shore, little rivers, ... nothing beats the ultra light RF 100-400 you can hold for minutes in uncomfortable (low) positions enabling shots never been possible before. Thanks for this vid!
Great video! Looking to get into wildlife and birds, but not happy with my Fuji. This video didn’t help me narrow it down, just helped me see there are lots of great options. I think I’m gonna go Nikon. Marry the glass, date the body, right? I’ve heard all good things about the Nikon. I can get a cheap aps-c Nikon second hand, and upgrade when they release a better solution.
I have 3 of the 5 you mention and like them all for different reasons. I love the 100-400 for video on my R5 you can handhold pretty easily. The 200-800 is just a great lens for reach and pairs very well with the R7. The Sony 200-600 is great as well. I use it with my a7riv, a7iv, and a6700 and it's great with all of them. I love the internal zoom of the Sony it makes it very easy to handle. Thanks for the video and I agree with your rankings for the most part. I don't have Nikon right now but if I do I will grab that 180-600 for sure.
Thank you! If Nikon even makes a great APSC camera, the 180-600 is going to be even better. They are all good though and I enjoy working with all of them.
I loved this video, Phil. So few people have experience with all of these lenses. I’m a Canon and Fuji shooter so I actually am blessed to own all three of these canon lenses as well as the Fuji 70-300 and 150-600. If I may, I would like to add my input with the Fuji lenses for birding as well. In a simple overall 1-10 score, the Fuji lenses all take a 1 point deduction just because of how poor Fuji cameras still perform. On my X-H2S and X-T5 (their best of the best) none of these lenses offer a reliably sharp performance. The 150-600 is about to find a new home be a of the recent acquisition of the Canon 200-800, which now owns all my lenses for my backyard bird photos. But the 70-300 I give an 8.5 simply because it’s the best size/weight, IQ ratio of any lens I’ve owned. It’s held back 1 point for autofocus and .5 points for being HORRIBLY non par-focal as the focus is erratic as you zoom. A very unpleasant experience. The 150-600 is a mixed bag for me. When the images hit, I’d consider it a 9.0, but looking back at my full images taken with the 150-600 and the X-H2S, this lens absolutely struggles to achieve consistently sharp images on moving subjects…a shortcoming I’m willing to omit with the 70-300, but NOT for the premium 150-600. For static subjects, it’s a brilliant lens…brilliant. But for anything moving the Fuji system just falls flat on its face so I find no reason to continue owning this lens when I already have the Canon stuff that outperforms it handily. I tip my hat to Nikon and Sony for their super zooms. I think Canon did an OK job that satisfies my needs, but I do wish it was more along the lines of an internal zoom design of the Nikon/Sony with a much lighter and shorter zoom throw. I genuinely believe the Canon RF 100-500 is a satisfactory lens that’s only real short comings are its price and comically inferior comparability with teleconverters.
Hi Phil. Great video. Was hoping you could help me. I own an R7 and an r8. You think I should buy the 100-500 rf lens for the R7 in mind or get the 200-800 rf with the R8 in mind. Thank you in advance
@@PhilThach thank you so much for going thru the trouble to answer my question. I do enjoy your videos, please keep doing what you do, and congratulations on your engagement.
For run and gun wildlife videography and photography do you recommend the 100-500 or 200-800 for the R7. I’m afraid if I get the 100-500 I’m going to wish I had the reach of the 200-800, but I’m also afraid the 200-800 won’t be great for videography. Thanks in advance Phil!
I have R5 and the 100-400, got a few good shots, but i agree with you on most of the review. Hence been looking at the 100-500mm, the 200-800mm and the ef100-400mm. Bang for buck the 100-400mm is up there, leaning towards the 100-500mm for the quality. Good review, nice to see an honest opinion without the bull that a lot of others do.
Thanks for that very thorough and even review Phil. I've got the 100 to 500 Canon and an R5. And my big issue is not the lens (sharp!!!). It's the bloody rolling shutter. Let's hope that the R 5-2 is a stack sensor and sorts that out. This review sort of help me in pondering whether I go ahead and get the 200-800 or wait until the new R5 comes out. I think I'll keep my powder dry.
Overall a good review, and I appreciate your opinion. I own the Sony 200-600 and do not have the CA issue you mention. You might want to send that lens to Sony for calibration (I did mine). While the 200-800 has more reach, and the 100-500 may have greater close-up magnification, the Sony full frame bodies have 50 megapixel and 60 megapixel, respectively, making up for the difference in magnification. You also failed to mention the A7RV 60 megapixel body. The focus accuracy and speed with no black-out compensate for its slow 10 frames per second, and the increased resolution make it’s max focal length equivalent to the Canon 200-800 on and R5. I will often pick up the A7RV over the A1 for birds.
Thank you, I actually ordered a 200-800, but the dealer said there was a payment problem, I actually think that he was only pretending to have any stock. As I have a 100-400Lii and a x2 extender I will now not bother. As it dropped on sharpness I can hopefully get the same with what I have, even if I boost it with Topaz.
It used to be a tie between Sony and Canon because I didn’t have a good Nikon Camera but I just bought a Z8 so I’d say the Nikon will be number one for a while.
Hello Phil, I have another vision of this kind of comparison... the only interesting comparison would be to compare the Z180-600 with TC 1.4, the Sony 200-600 with TC 1.4 and the Canon RF 200-800 because for the Still, it's not much use... 200mm difference is huge! The RF100-500 with a TC 1.4 cannot even be completely folded up and fully used its focal range, therefore eliminating it. Now that we compare like for like we get a Z252-840 f8-f9 for a total weight of 2243 grams or 5.23 lbs. So the aperture of the Z180-600 is more limited, its focal position is less interesting we no longer start at 200 but at 252mm the weight is greater the price is more expensive 2243 dollars (546+1697). The sharpness will be similar, the aperture at 800mm will be similar, the construction quality will also be similar in the end no big difference as with the Sony 200-600 and TC 1.4X. For me there is no winner, there are just photographers who make choices based on their use! It remains to be seen whether people need an 800mm the majority of the time or not! one of the advantages for Sony and Nikon = internal zoom therefore more resistant to dust and above all much faster to turn the focusing ring and much more stable on a tripod! Have a nice day everyone, Ludo
I’m using a R7 with a RF 100-500. But I feel like a really underrated lens is the Sigma 100-400C. To be completely honest in hindsight I should have just saved my money. Don’t get me wrong the extra 100mm is nice and it’s definitely sharper but considering I’m not a pro l, the sigma was perfect and ignorance is bliss. Now I can never go back. 😆 It was probably 85-95% as good and paid $650 brand new on sale. Reviews agree. So anyone thinking about the RF100-400, give the sigma consideration. Even the guys at my camera shop said it’s no contest. Sigma all day.
I just watched another video comparing only the Nikon 180 to 600 and 100 to 500. The Canon 100 to 500 appeared to show a fair amount of focus breathing. Whether it was pilot error on the demo, I cannot say. This cropped up (no pun intended), once before with the Canon DSLR 100 to 400 L, versus the latest Tamron 100 to 400 Nikon F mount. It was fairly prominent on that Canon as well. So, I did the sensible thing and bought the Tamron. (Which was the best decision, since the Canon wouldn't fit on any of my Nikon bodies)..😉🤔
I just got the 100-500 for my R7. It is super sharp compared to the RF 100-400 which I had been using. I was amazed at the detail it retains even after cropping. Despite the heavy price tag, still happy with the results so far.
Definitely agree with the Nikon 180-600 unfortunately Nikon is unlikely to come up with a flagship APS-C camera of their own and it's a shame as it's pushed those users to Canon and Nikon. I love the 100-500 and itching to add the 200-800 to my inventory. Have an R7 which pairs excellently with the 100-500 and R6mkii which i want to pair with the 200-800 ( when I get that lens ) as it'll be close to on par with my R7 set up and better provide comparisons.
Another great video Phil well put together. I traded in my Canon 100-400 RF used on my R7 to the 100-500 RF, not because I disliked the 400, its a great lens but because I had seen results of the L series lens first hand from a friend and because I’ve got a very understanding wife 😊. The 500 is definitely a lot heavier and more expensive but the quality is great and I have no regrets in trading up.
I have a huge bag that is barely carry on size. I can put the 200-800 in there with a body attached on the lens hood not flipped. I admit, I'm pretty tempted to get a Z8.
Hey Phil, thank you for the great video 🙂 In a couple more days, I'll be able to see about the 200-800 for myself, as my rental is in shipping now. I'm SO curious as to the sharpness @800 F11, since that is what it has to beat. LOVE my slow 800 F11 😉👍 It's kind of strange... I've heard a few folks say this lens is sharper than the 800 F11, and a few say it's not ? Surely their can't be that much variance from copy to copy ? The zoom should be great, and the "faster" F9 aperture couldn't hurt.... But it does need to be at least "as sharp" as my beloved 800 F11, or else I'll just buy another 800 F11 the same day I'm returning the 200-800 rental. (have to have at least two long lenses for cross country trips) Oh btw, my dream combo is probably the Nikon PF 800 F6.3... with a pro level Nikon APS-C body > when and if they ever come out with one ?
Thank you! I think if I was still full-time Nikon like I was years ago, I would probably have the 800 6.3 and a Z8 or Z9. I would have to say that stopped down to F/11, the 200-800 is sharper than the 800 f/11. I would be interested to hear what you think when you get your rental.
@@PhilThach funny you should say that... I was actually thinking that all of my testing the first day or two, was going to be @ F11, and from about 20-25 ft, just so that I could compare apples to apples with my 800 F11 👍 Plus I'll be going back and forth with the 800 F11, which will be easy, as I have two R7's, so I won't even have to do any lens swapping 🙂 After that, I'll get out in the field and try some closer stuff as well as different aperture settings....
As a Canon shooter with the new 200-800...sigh.. I can concede that the NIkon lens is a better value for what it is. I envy that lens and have even considered getting it, but with the autofocus of the Nikon apsc cameras it holds me back but have been looking at the Z7/II bodies. Over all I think a spot on review of the lenses. I'm just having so much fun with the 200-800, the cost and limited mm of the 100-500 with teleconverter just throws me off, seems overpriced for what it is but to each their own opinion. The RF100-400 is a great value lens for what it is and for those wanting a less expensive option to get into birding. It's pretty sharp I felt with decent colors, it can struggle a bit in low light situations and shooting things outside its range, but again, a great value lens for the price. Thanks for the review.
Hi, very well done comparison s. I m going for canon r7 and struggling to decide between rf100-400 or rf 100-500.? I m more worried about it's weight, considering my age, entering 65!! A retired person presently using canon m50 mk II, with 55-250 mm lens. Your experience can guide me well. Thanks
Do you notice any problems with the autofocus on the 200-800? Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like I’m always missing and the tracking for birds just doesn’t seem to latch on very easily. I’m shooting on an R6? Not sure if that matters.
Thanks for the great comparison! Nikon seems to charge a lot of their bodies compared to Sony & Canon but that 180-600mm is so cheap. Just thinking from a high megapixel FX / APS-C viewpoint. It would be great to hear your thoughts on the following lenses geared up for high resolution bodies: Nikkor 200-500 S series Sony G Master 100-400 zoom Nikon Af-s Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens And the Canon L-Series you just covered of course.
I think Nikon bodies are very reasonable by comparison. For example, compare the price of the Z8 to the R5 Mark II. The Z 8 is $800 cheaper and has a faster read out speed sensor.
Amazing these zooms and their relatively low price point. While not shown here, I am rockin’ the Fujinon 150-600 usually attached to my X-T5 or X-T3. While I shoot birds they usually have metal wings and a few that fly with full afterburners. This lens is one of my better investments, like my 50-140, though a constant f5.6 would been nice, though no doubt heavier and costlier.
Great work Phil! One thought would be to possibly weight the categories as I don’t see all of these categories as equal when evaluating a lens. I understand the weighting would be different for everyone, but the video is already subjective, so you could weight according to your opinion. Just a thought.
That's a very good point but in the end I was too lazy to make it that complicated. I figured and should have mentioned that some categories could be more or less valuable for each individual viewer.
I’m going to Botswana in July and was all set on purchasing the canon 200 mm to 800 mm to pair with my R7 which gives me 1280 reach. Now you have me thinking about the canon 100 mm to 500 mm which, of course gives me 800 mm reach. I will be shooting large animals but I also photograph birds of any size. Is 800 mm enough? What do you suggest? Thanks Phil.
Thank you! Both of those lenses will be good on your R10. The 100-500 will be better if you can afford it but if not the 100-400 does very well for the money.
I got the 100-400 for my r6mkii. I think it's good enough for me since I'm a beginner and just a hobbyist. Maybe one day I got the 100-500 when I really got serious with bird photography.
Great comparison. I have my eye on that lens. Currently it is backordered. I want to sell my 200-500mm but am waiting until after the Eclipse in April.
Love this Phil- well thought out-- I use the RF 100-500 on the R6 mark 2 and due to cropping have to up size my shots a lot- they still look ok to me but I have not been printing my bird shots-- I do love this lens for landscape.
Thank you! I have the same issues when using the 100-500 for birds on the R6 Mark II. I think you would enjoy the 200-800 or the 800 f/11 for birds on the R6 Mark II or even just adding the 1.4x teleconverter extender to you bag.
Having used the rf 100-400, rf 100-500, and nikon 180-600 I think almost everything you saidis accurate. I'd have probably gave the 100-400 and 100-500 extra points for size/weight. They are just so easy to use especially the 100-400. You can hand that lens to anyone on a r7 and they can carry it around all day taking pics of birds. The 180-600 is in the "may need mono or tripod" category. Im hoping the mk ii version of 100-500 fixes the tc compatibility and maybe gives a bit more magnification. thatd be all i need them to improve to order it immediately.
Thank you! I scored the 100-400 a perfect 10 in Storeability (size) and 10 in the weight category as well. The 100-500 scored 9.5 and 9 in those two. These were the two highest scores in those two categories. As for the mkii version of the 100-500 fixing the TC issue. They could certainly do that but it would impact size. I actually like the compromise they made but I still have to score the 100-500 lower because of it.
@@PhilThach that's true. I guess I meant id actually remove like 1 to .5 a point from others more than you did so there is a bigger gap between the rf lenses and them just because I think it makes a big difference in how stable you can hold the lenses and how long you can use them. Or even using them in weird positions. That is true about TC compatibility. Maybe just make the range a bit bigger. Like 200 or 250 to 500. On the r7 I almost never use the TC because the minimum equivalent focal length is already at nearly 700mm which is what FF ends at with the 1.4
Very informative review. Thanks for doing this. Is it possible you could share information about the cameras you used for testing these lenses. Thanks.
Thank you very much! Just look on the channel in the wildlife and pets playlist and you will see every photo shoot that I used for the criteria of this video.
Nice round up Phil. I have lens envy! LOL I was looking at the Sony 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter for a trip to Alaska. The 200-600 is a beast of a lens. My favorite bag is the lowepro 200 series. The 200-600 would require a different bag. I think the 200-600 has better image quality than the 100-400 and the 1.4 teleconverter. Plus the 200-600 is about $500 cheaper. First world problems. LOL
I recently acquired a Zfc and found out that I love using it for bird/wildlife with Z70-200/2.8 +2.0x TC. I want the Z 180-600 but I also want a Z6 III or Z8 (to replace my Z6 I). And yea, DX line needs major update.
Thank you for this comparison. I am showing symptoms of gear aquisition syndrome having owned an R6 and EF 100-400ii with the 1.4x iii and 2x iii extenders for a few years now. I also have a 500 f4 ii but the weight can just be so cumbersome on long days, so I am looking for something native to the R6 to replace/upgrade from the 100-400ii. I am leaning towards the 200-800, but also looking at the 100-500. Any thoughts or opinions on this would be appreciated. My wallet says to stay put :) Thanks again for the video!
Strange, I've been using the 200-600mm lens for several years and have never had any problems with the chromatic aberration you mention. Can you show some photos of it? Something doesn't feel right here.
Can't show photos in a comment. Maybe I got a bad copy but I see a noticeable amount of purple/pink/magenta fringing when shooting wide open. I'll never forget one day I was working on photos I made with the 200-600 and Heather who shoots with a 100-500 Canon stopped in to the office for a moment and she noticed it immediately.
I love this combo so much. I just got an R8 to complement the R7 so the 100-400 really will live 100% of the time on the R7 while the R8 does the wide stuff. I do a lot of hiking and even if I had the 100-500 as an option I think I’d stick with the smaller lens if the light is good.
Merci, pour la video, j'ai le r7,r6, rf100-400 et rf100-500, question avec l'adaptateur 1.4 sur le r7 avec le rf 100-500, je trouve que l'autofocus est tr`s très lent en basse lumiere. Avez-vous eu ce probléme.
@PhilThach Another quality review Phil 🙂 Far too many reviews that are not done by people who have no idea of the challenges of shooting fast moving small birds in different light conditions so it's great that you look at the enthusiast mirrorless camera bodies too. Many people do not have the money for an R3 or Z9 and a lack of a crop factor on both is a disadvantage at times.
Currently ive got the Canon 100-400mm on an rp. Im waiting on the 200-800mm and that should help get much better pictures of birds with its extra reach. Heres to hoping that Canon puts the production line for the 200-800mm on overdrive because as of now seems like i wont see it for several months :/
Gosh, I found the 180-600 was unacceptably soft wide open - worse than the older 200-500 so you have to stop down to f/8, and the 200-600 was also sharper than the 100-500. Being able to shoot at f/6.3 with the 200-600 means faster shutter speeds and lower iso. Also I found the a6700 AF system is far more reliable than the Canon R7/R10 AF system. Strange you haven't encountered the same issue as many have reported on the hit and miss focus on the Canons.
Not everyone will agree. I do find the R7 to have hit and miss focus but I think it is better at acquisition and less likely to get stuck on a busy background during birds in flight photography. Overall, I prefer the R7 over the a6700 for birds even though neither is perfect.
@@duncangroenewald could be. I have a theory the more elements and groups that modern lenses have been transitioning to introduces more variability. I find I’m purchasing more unacceptable lenses now a days, it’s not just Nikon either. High megapixels also doesn’t help hide flaws. I think this theory is supported by more reviewers have found the 180-600 and 200-600 were quite similar. And I know there’s lens copy variation issues with the 200-600
Thank you! I think the Z6II will be 24mp like the two previous versions. Kind of low resolution for full frame bird photography unless you are using their awesome 800mm PF lens.
@@PhilThach That’s true. Frankly I was hoping for a 24 megapixel APSC stacked sensor! With the auto focus of the Z8. Rumors abound but we will know soon.
I have the 100-500 on my R7 and close in my backyard I can count whiskers on the cats...so sharp. But out on the islands on longer shots of geese and cranes are all foggy 100% soft? I dont get it and boxing it up to send it to Canon.
When you are making photographs of things a long way away, sometimes you will get distortion in your shot from just the amount of atmosphere you are shooting through. There’s also heat distortion to deal with. I don’t think it’s a problem with your lens.
This happens every single time I take shots across the road and farther any time of day.. Distortion was my first guess. I have evened the temp in my truck with outside. I took the filter and lens shade off. Doesnt matter. Soft. Canon techs have tried to help. It is going back lol Camera and lens.@@PhilThach
Great video Phil, I'm 100% Canon and have the 200-800mm on order, I have many friends who shoot Nikon and to be honest dont find much difference in the kit.
Lenses that are often purchased to be used in Bird photography. Also, my comparison has bird photography in mind as opposed to other things that you could use these lenses for.
I just knew the Nikon would win it from the way you were holding it. Haha.. I would easily give it the win too and I shoot Canon R7 as well. I already had a good Canon zoom 100-400 MK2 didnt want to get into RF lenses. I also have some Canon primes prefer them to zoom anyway never sell them. I think I may get the Z8 with that Nikon Zoom but just waiting for Nikon to surprise us with a Pro apsc. I can feel its coming. Canon don't take the apsc seriously or we would have had a pro stacked R7 ages ago. Not a bad camera though.
@@PhilThach have thought about a Z8 myself too but unsure I want two different manufacturers in my inventory. Will have to think hard on that one, as it's probably the best full frame camera on the market.
I like the video, but it makes no sense to a lot of photographers. I’m a Sony shooter, so I’m not gone switch to Canon, and for Canon shooter vice versa…. So, interesting video but yeah… it is what it is 😉👍🏻 I’m also pretty sure that You’re a Canon shooter yourself
@@PhilThach than to yourself it makes a lot of sense 😀 and it’s nice to know for sure, how the different teles perform in the real world. I love my 200-600 G, and I’ve never noticed real chromatic aberration to be honest. But okay. Thanks for your reaction.
So literally sony make lens with wide aperture with some catches...typical sony, like to show off tech but cripple so much like what they messed up a9iii global shutter dynamic range, iso performance hahaa
