Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm

[AlanF]

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 600mm is softer; the EF 600mm f/4 iii is similar to the 100-500mm; adding the RF 1.4xTC to the RF 100-500mm at 700mm doesn't add much detail; and the two 800mm lens add clearly more detail.

 

[Click]

Thank you very much for this comparison.

 

[Del Paso]

Very interesting comparison.
Stunning IQ for the 70-200 Z + 2X, fully confirming TDP's quality results.
Even the inexpensive 800mm f/11 produces a convincingly sharp picture.
Thanks for the extensive testing!

 

[AlanF]

Very interesting comparison.
Stunning IQ for the 70-200 Z + 2X, fully confirming TDP's quality results.
Even the inexpensive 800mm f/11 produces a convincingly sharp picture.
Thanks for the extensive testing!

It was very helpful for me. I'm very tempted by 70-200 Z. Super sharp, not too heavy and takes the 2x so well. Neuro once wrote, I recall, that the 100-300mm with 2xTC is not as sharp as the RF 100-500 and that is consistent also with Canon's MTF charts. And I was disappointed with the RF 600mm. I could hand hold it for brief periods and f/4 is clearly very useful. It's not as sharp as the 600mm f/4 ii in the TDP charts, and it wasn't outstanding on the target here.

 

[Jethro]

Thanks for that Alan.

And the RF 800mm f/11 produced a great shot! A nice reminder for those who periodically like to say it's unusable because it starts at f/11. I've got the 600mm f/11 version, which I love also.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for that Alan.

And the RF 800mm f/11 produced a great shot! A nice reminder for those who periodically like to say it's unusable because it starts at f/11. I've got the 600mm f/11 version, which I love also.

Opticallimits tested the RF 800/11 and had to admit it is rather good. I don’t use mine since getting the 200-800 but I am not going to sell it as it is so cheap used. I have considered getting a 600/11 at a knock down price - those two f/11 lenses are a steal.

 

[EricN]

Opticallimits tested the RF 800/11 and had to admit it is rather good. I don’t use mine since getting the 200-800 but I am not going to sell it as it is so cheap used. I have considered getting a 600/11 at a knock down price - those two f/11 lenses are a steal.

Does Canon UK do refurbished sales?

 

[AlanF]

Does Canon UK do refurbished sales?

No! And they often charge 20% more here for the regular price. However, there is a reliable grey market. For example the Canon price for the RF 70-200 Z is about £3500 but on the grey market £2500. The RF 200-800 is about £2200, but it was on sale a couple of days ago on the grey market for £1600. But, for lenses, I want the opportunity to return if it seems not up to spec, but that is rarely necessary.

 

[P-visie]

It was very helpful for me. I'm very tempted by 70-200 Z. Super sharp, not too heavy and takes the 2x so well. Neuro once wrote, I recall, that the 100-300mm with 2xTC is not as sharp as the RF 100-500 and that is consistent also with Canon's MTF charts. And I was disappointed with the RF 600mm. I could hand hold it for brief periods and f/4 is clearly very useful. It's not as sharp as the 600mm f/4 ii in the TDP charts, and it wasn't outstanding on the target here.

Thank you for this comparison.

I do not want to lead you into temptation, Gordon Laing from Camera Labs has a video where he compares the RF70-200mm, the RF70-200mm Z + extenders with the RF100-500mm. The RF 70-200mm Z with extenders is as sharp as the RF 100-500mm.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTVyg9T43SY

 

[AlanF]

Thank you for this comparison.

I do not want to lead you into temptation, Gordon Laing from Camera Labs has a video where he compares the RF70-200mm, the RF70-200mm Z + extenders with the RF100-500mm. The RF 70-200mm Z with extenders is as sharp as the RF 100-500mm.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTVyg9T43SY

It's gone through my mind. For birding per se, I can put the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and get about the same resolution as the RF 200-800mm. (I'll try it out when convenient to compare the cockerel and shield image.) The RF 200/2.8 or 400/5.6 puts near enough the same number of photons per duck as a 500/7.1, so the signal/noise in both systems should be the same. However, it would be nice to have a super 70-200/2.8 for using native and then be able to do moderate birding with it. Even better on an R7 or R7 ii, which would have the reach of a 560mm on the R5ii.

 

[EricN]

No! And they often charge 20% more here for the regular price. However, there is a reliable grey market. For example the Canon price for the RF 70-200 Z is about £3500 but on the grey market £2500. The RF 200-800 is about £2200, but it was on sale a couple of days ago on the grey market for £1600. But, for lenses, I want the opportunity to return if it seems not up to spec, but that is rarely necessary.

This is when we really need to be able to do the angry face like or sad face like

 

[meywd]

It was very helpful for me. I'm very tempted by 70-200 Z. Super sharp, not too heavy and takes the 2x so well. Neuro once wrote, I recall, that the 100-300mm with 2xTC is not as sharp as the RF 100-500 and that is consistent also with Canon's MTF charts. And I was disappointed with the RF 600mm. I could hand hold it for brief periods and f/4 is clearly very useful. It's not as sharp as the 600mm f/4 ii in the TDP charts, and it wasn't outstanding on the target here.

RF 600 F/4 or EF 600 F/4 III?

 

[AlanF]

RF 600 F/4 or EF 600 F/4 III?

They have identical optics but with different mounts and wiring. Canon just adapted the EF lens to fit the RF system without an adapter. There may be minor differences in AF and IS.

 

[Frodo]

There was a significant redesign between the EF 600mm f/4L ii and iii. This shifted larger lens elements from the front to the middle of the lens, reducing total weight and making the lens less front heavy. Critical reviewers noted the significant reduction in weight but also a decline in image quality between the ii and iii.

 

[Jethro]

There was a significant redesign between the EF 600mm f/4L ii and iii. This shifted larger lens elements from the front to the middle of the lens, reducing total weight and making the lens less front heavy. Critical reviewers noted the significant reduction in weight but also a decline in image quality between the ii and iii.

View attachment 225776
View attachment 225777

To be fair, Bryan on DP Review said that there was a slight reduction in sharpness: "The version II lens has awesome image quality and the version III promises nearly identical results. ... The version III vs. II comparison shows the version II lens slightly sharper in the center of the frame with the difference becoming more apparent when extenders are mounted. The version III lens has considerably less lateral CA."

 

[Del Paso]

No! And they often charge 20% more here for the regular price. However, there is a reliable grey market. For example the Canon price for the RF 70-200 Z is about £3500 but on the grey market £2500. The RF 200-800 is about £2200, but it was on sale a couple of days ago on the grey market for £1600. But, for lenses, I want the opportunity to return if it seems not up to spec, but that is rarely necessary.

But if you notify Panamoz within 14 days, lenses can be returned.
"No problem. We have a 14 Day Money Back Guarantee. Just notify us within 14 days of delivery, which is shown on the courier's tracking system. We will arrange with a courier to pick it up from a location of your choice. We will send you a full refund less our shipping and handling fee (20 GBP flat rate). Please note the item has to be in 100% new and unused condition to take advantage of our 14 day money back guarantee."

 

[Del Paso]

It's gone through my mind. For birding per se, I can put the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and get about the same resolution as the RF 200-800mm. (I'll try it out when convenient to compare the cockerel and shield image.) The RF 200/2.8 or 400/5.6 puts near enough the same number of photons per duck as a 500/7.1, so the signal/noise in both systems should be the same. However, it would be nice to have a super 70-200/2.8 for using native and then be able to do moderate birding with it. Even better on an R7 or R7 ii, which would have the reach of a 560mm on the R5ii.

I'm thinking of a 70-200 Z + 2X to replace both the RF 70-200 (non Z) and the RF 100-500 when hiking in the Alps, saving much weight and space. 400mm are often more than enough for landscapes.
It's an almost incredible achievement to design a zoom which hardly suffers a loss of IQ when fitted with an extender.

 

[EricN]

I'm thinking of a 70-200 Z + 2X to replace both the RF 70-200 (non Z) and the RF 100-500 when hiking in the Alps, saving much weight and space. 400mm are often more than enough for landscapes.
It's an almost incredible achievement to design a zoom which hardly suffers a loss of IQ when fitted with an extender.

It seems reasonable as long as you're not hoping to photograph a flying unicorn

 

[ThomasTH]

I'm thinking of a 70-200 Z + 2X to replace both the RF 70-200 (non Z) and the RF 100-500 when hiking in the Alps, saving much weight and space. 400mm are often more than enough for landscapes.
It's an almost incredible achievement to design a zoom which hardly suffers a loss of IQ when fitted with an extender.

I don't have any RF tele lenses yet, but that's exactly what I'm planning to do. Now I have confirmation that it's a good plan, and that others are considering it too.

 

[AlanF]

I don't have any RF tele lenses yet, but that's exactly what I'm planning to do. Now I have confirmation that it's a good plan, and that others are considering it too.

When it comes to plans, remember:
“the best-laid schemes o'mice an' men Gang aft agley.” Translated it means that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Robert Burns
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy" von Moltke

Also consider the RF 100-400mm, it weighs and costs next to nothing, hardly more than a 2xTC, and gives very good images. If you are going to be using a 70-200mm at f/2.8, then the 2xTC is a great addition to make a 140-400mm f/5.6. But if you just want something in the 100-400mm range for general use, then the el cheapo 100-400 does the job. I'll test it on the cockerel and shield when I get time.