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

[ThomasTH]

Thank you for the tip about the 100–400mm lens, but I plan to use it for portrait photography, so I definitely want the 70–200mm f/2.8 lens. I mostly take photos of my little toddler son. I rarely have time for taking photos of something else nowadays. I know that the RF 70-200 2.8 Z is actually an overkill for my tasks but hey....it's a hobby...
And I'm starting completely new with Canon and don't want to make any compromises regarding lenses anymore. Have done that a lot in the past.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

If you do not often need the 100mm extra reach of the 100-500, this seems to be an ideal choice. You could maybe complete the set (70-200 Z + 2X) with the inexpensive 800 f/11.
This is at least what I would have done, or will be doing in addition to my non-Z 70-200 (ideal in cities) and 100-500.

 

[Del Paso]

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

No worries, I only take pictures of unicorns sitting on branches, and never UIF.
But this 70-200 Z is murderously tempting...

 

[EricN]

No worries, I only take pictures of unicorns sitting on branches, and never UIF.
But this 70-200 Z is murderously tempting...

Then again, if it was a white flying unicorn, f11 is probably ok!

 

[tron]

Many Thanks Alan for all this information. You are like a talking errr hmm writing Canon (and Nikon) encyclopedia.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

View attachment 225693View attachment 225694View attachment 225695

Alan, fantastic comparison. My takeaway: I need to sell my 100-500 and get the 200-800. My wife has one, and I figured having one of each was better than upgrading, but I've been apparently quite wrong.

 

[justaCanonuser]

... same number of photons per duck ...

great, I'll keep that "bio-physical" quantity in mind, thank you so much, Alan. That made my day.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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

Yes, and you feel that when you shoot free-hand like I prefer to do since I am quicker and more flexible in particular with flying birds. The III is so well balanced that it feels like would be much lighter than 3kg. I used for decades a vintage EF 500 f/4.5 with the same weight but that was with its classic tele design much more front heavy, so my left arm got much quicker tired when I shot free-hand for a while.

Btw Sony copied the basic design of Canon's 600/4 III with their current 600/4 lens, w/o hurting patents, of course, be re-designing enough details. According to e.g. Bryan Carnathan's review , Sony's lens is in the center a tad sharper than Canon's RF version (optics same as in the EF Mk III predecessor), in particular with TCs added ( section "Alternatives" in https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-600mm-f-4-GM-OSS-Lens.aspx). I also came across comments that stated that Canon's Mark II version with the still classic front-heavy design is a little bit sharper in the center. That said, I am happy with my MK III, it even produces great results with Canon's 1.4x TC III and still very useful results with the 2x TC III.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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

Optically they are the same lenses, but I experienced one drawback with my EF version attached to R cameras: focus preset is with my R7 completely off, so I can't use it with that camera, and with the R5 II it is slightly off, so it can be used but the camera needs a bit to re-focus on a preset-saved distance. I updated the firmware of my 600 III to the latest version 1.1.3, what didn't solve that problem. So if that's an issue for you, in particular if you want to get with an R7 most "reach" but have that preset feature available, then you should go for an RF version of that lens. I do hope that Canon might solve that problem with future firmware updates for the EF version of that lens.

 

[AlanF]

great, I'll keep that "bio-physical" quantity in mind, thank you so much, Alan. That made my day.

I am an honorary member of the British Biophysical Society!

 

[justaCanonuser]

I am an honorary member of the British Biophysical Society!

Ah, I see! I am in the physics "business", too, but as a physics magazine editor and a German science journalist.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Optically they are the same lenses, but I experienced one drawback with my EF version attached to R cameras: focus preset is with my R7 completely off, so I can't use it with that camera, and with the R5 II it is slightly off, so it can be used but the camera needs a bit to re-focus on a preset-saved distance. I updated the firmware of my 600 III to the latest version 1.1.3, what didn't solve that problem. So if that's an issue for you, in particular if you want to get with an R7 most "reach" but have that preset feature available, then you should go for an RF version of that lens. I do hope that Canon might solve that problem with future firmware updates for the EF version of that lens.

I solved the focus preset problem with the EF version of that lens: open in the "customize buttons function for shooting" , scroll down to "lens button function" and activate "AF-OFF". Then you can use the function button on the EF 600mm III to save a focus preset precisely both on the R5 II and R7. In fact, an introductory video of Duade Paton to the R5 II for birding gave me the right idea to test this (he preferred another setting).

So this info might be useful to some readers here: there is no reason to buy the RF version if you able to get the EF version for a better price, for instance.

 

[stillviking]

How about corners for landscape?