It's amazing to me how often folks complain that Canon doesn't have anything like that wonderful Nikon 500mm or why can't they just have a 200-600mm like Sony. As you mention, one reason Canon doesn't have (or need) those lenses is because they already have something better! I guess they just love complaining!
I agree, therefore a repost of a post I wrote a while ago:
I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.
RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus
If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:
- RF: possible walk-around lense
- Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)
- RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread allows regular filters…)
- Sony: almost exclusively wild-life
The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.
In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)
The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.
I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is
one third of stop faster between 472-500mm and people literally comparing apples and melons. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…
.
