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

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.

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks

Happy to hear that

Happy to hear 😊

Thanks

Happy to hear

Have fun with the RF200-800

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I surely will!!! 😄

Sounds like a good kit! Have fun!

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.

You‘re welcome

Thank you!

Thanks

You‘re welcome

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

Merci!

Thanks

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

Thanks man great tip! Will be using this?

@@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.

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

Thanks!

Have fun!

I prefer to handhold it, it’s rather lightweight

I think so as well

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

You‘re welcome!

Thanks for your input

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

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

Thanks for your comment

Yes, the RF100-500 is much nicer for that

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.

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

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

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

Thanks

R5

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

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

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

Hope you will get yours soon

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

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

Yes, I agree 😊

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Danke Fabian 😊

Sounds like a nice combination 😊

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

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

Yes!

You‘re welcome

Yes, I would do the same!

You‘re welcome!

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

@@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!!!!

Why do you prefer the Sony?

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

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.

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

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

Unfortunately I don’t own an R7

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

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

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography fabian I have emailed you the link

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

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

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

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

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

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!!!

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

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

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

I unfortunately don’t own an R7

Yes, I think that’s a great combo

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

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

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.

@@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

@@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.

@@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

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

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

What about the RF100-500 then?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Yes, that’s really annoying

You can always watch the video again in Spring :-)

My 600/4 😅

he did that

Yes, I did all of that in the video 😊

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

It‘s for sure not for everybody. I also prefer my 600/4, but that also costs a bit more

No photographer that I know only takes photos in early, early light or last minute light, even if they would like to! Animals don't cooperate in the first place. Of course this lens isn't going to work, unless you just do silhouettes, in low light. Pull out a heavy f4 or 2.8 for that, if you have one. But an awful lot of photography happens between when it's too dark for this lens and you have bright, harsh midday sun, and it's too bright for photography. Or on bright overcast days. That's when the light weight (comparitively), compact portability and reach of this lens will shine! Lots of times I go hiking on a cool, light overcast morning looking for birds or wildlife. I'm not going to haul my 500 f4 up the side of a mountain! I could carry this. Driving around, this lens would be ideal to have on the seat next to me. I usually end up banging the bulky 500 on the ceiling and steering wheel trying to get it in position! Of course, if light conditions demand it, they demand it!! But if they don't, what a wonderful, compact alternative! All lenses are tools. You can't build a house with just a hammer! The trick is having a variety and pulling out the right one for the job!

Do you mean youtube ads or my affiliate links?