I had intended to use the RF 100-500mm for photoing insects close up because it focusses so much closer than the RF 200-800mm and it has much better magnification. RF 200-800mm mfd is at 800mm is a very long 3.2m, and the highest magnification is 0.25x at 200mm with an mfd of 0.8m. The RF 100-500mm has its mfd at 500mm of a very short 0.9m with magnification 0.33x. Yesterday, to my surprise I got my first butterfly shot of the year and it was with the RF 200-800mm at 673mm and very sharp. So, I tested both lenses close up with photos of a British £20 note. It has lots of areas of different degrees of colour shading and contrast, which are much more informative than monochrome charts. I did images at 3.5m, 2.4m and 2m.
RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm very close up
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
A smaller portrait of the Queens head has the shading picked out in shades of grey and white dots and is good at showing contrast, and an area in gold of Britannia other detail.
The RF 200-800mm at 500 and 600mm are again the best. The 100-500mm at 500mm is clearly the worst, and much of the grey shading not seen because of poorer contrast.
The RF 200-800mm at 500 and 600mm are again the best. The 100-500mm at 500mm is clearly the worst, and much of the grey shading not seen because of poorer contrast.
Upvote
0
EDIT: I misfocussed the RF 100-500mm at 2.4m, and have corrected in a later post.
These comparisons have changed my attitude to the RF 200-800mm. I had thought it a heavier version of the RF 100-500mm with a built in 1.4x TC and of lesser versatility when out on a combined bird/insect watching trip. It's clearly very good for insects at 500mm.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I screwed up a bit with some misfocussing with the RF 100-500mm at 2.4m and I have retaken shots. At the mfd of 2.4m for the RF 200-800mm@500mm, the centres of both the RF 100-500 and 200-800mm at 500mm are both very sharp. But, there is more field curvature with the bigger lens, the 100-500mm being pretty flat. Here is also a further pair of shots with the 200-800mm@200mm and 0.93m, close to the mfd and maximum magnification, compared with the 100-500mm at 500mm and 1.3m, close to its mfd and maximum magnification. Both are very sharp in the dead centre, focussed on the Queen's face. But, the field curvature from the 200-800 begins to lose detail quite quickly whereas the 100-500 is far better. So, if you are about 3m away, both lenses are pretty comparable. But, closer in the RF 100-500mm increasingly wins out as you fill the sensor area.
Upvote
0
Just piling on a bit as to how almost unexpectedly good the RF 200-800 lens is. But, I am headed out to photograph next week's eclipse. For a long time, I had assumed I would photograph it with the 500 II. Now I am debating which lens will be my primary. I did some test shots on Saturday.
While I have seen some detail like this before, to my surprise, I think I am seeing solar flares/activity much more clearly with the RF 200-800 @ 800 through baader film. Before, there was not as much detail, just some surface fuzziness, so I thought maybe the Baader film impacted the image....but these are clear enough and look like small flares.
R5 RF 200-800 @ 800, handheld, 1/1600, f9, ISO 400
Just practicing, but also took some images with the 500 II +1.4TC through a different type of filter (Thousand Oaks glass lens) and this is far more detailed. So, I am debating what makes the trip. I can see a zoom being good....zoom in for details...zoom out for the corona.
BTW, color and some sharpening added. With Baader film, the image is white before processing.
While I have seen some detail like this before, to my surprise, I think I am seeing solar flares/activity much more clearly with the RF 200-800 @ 800 through baader film. Before, there was not as much detail, just some surface fuzziness, so I thought maybe the Baader film impacted the image....but these are clear enough and look like small flares.
R5 RF 200-800 @ 800, handheld, 1/1600, f9, ISO 400
Just practicing, but also took some images with the 500 II +1.4TC through a different type of filter (Thousand Oaks glass lens) and this is far more detailed. So, I am debating what makes the trip. I can see a zoom being good....zoom in for details...zoom out for the corona.
BTW, color and some sharpening added. With Baader film, the image is white before processing.
Upvote
0
Thanks. It turned out good. Stressful. I had a house with several family members outside Austin (under totality). The forecast has been calling for clouds. We saw a small window (using an astrophotography app ) that ended up being right. We had a very brief window, mostly before totality and then right at totality. So, many machinations, trying to decide if we abandon our position and drive or if we sit tight. We sat tight and I am good with our choice. I will go through all my pics by the weekend, but I posted a few I liked on my initial glance at my pictures:
240408 solar eclipse (totality)
M6MkII + 70-300 II IS (adapted) on a monopod Don't let anybody tell you otherwise--as far as solar eclipses are concerned, totality is where it's at!
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
