The R7 does work very well with the the RF 100-400mm at f/8 and the RF 800mm f/11. Just because the R7 would work even better with f/2.8 versions of those lenses doesn‘t mean it works badly with those narrower lenses. There are 100s of images here and on Fredmiranda showing how good they are in practice. I’m afraid you have been in all of your posts “making the perfect the enemy of the good”.
If I had to make a choice among, say, the Sony A1 + 200-600mm, the Nikon Z8 + 160-600mm and Canon R5 + 200-800mm, I would choose the, wait for it, the Canon R5 + RF 100-500mm. All lenses are a compromise of aperture, focal length, mfd, zoom, weight, size and price etc. My ideal lens would be a 10-1600mm, f/2.8 constant aperture, macro to infinity, weighing less than a kg and small enough for hand luggage. Until @HarryFilm finally delivers one, I will stick with the RF 100-500mm as my main telephoto for Nature since it is much lighter than the other 3 lenses and I can hold it and hike for much longer, focus much closer and its blisteringly fast AF is great for BIF. I would, and do, use the longer heavier lens in more restricted cases.
It's very hard to support a company that does things like make a "1200mm" lens by starting with a $13k 600mm lens from a different mount, adds a permant 2x TC to it, bolts on a flange adapter, and then has the gall to charge $20k for it.
Given the same scenario, I would take either the Sony A7RV + Sigma 500/5.6 (which ridiculously weighs less the Canon 100-500 does, in spite of being nearly a full stop faster), or the Z8 + 600/6.3.
You needs differ from mine. I used to shoot the Nikon D850 and D500 with the Nikon 500/5.6, which is a very sharp and light prime. But, I found the RF 100-500mm just about as sharp and so much more versatile because of its zoom and close focussing I will never go back to a 500/5.6 or similar prime. However, other peoples needs differ and they would prefer a prime. Now tell me, do you actually go out shooting with a 500mm prime or a 100-500 or 200-600 etc zoom? Or, is it all hypothetical? (By the way, the A7R5 has such dreadful rolling shutter - ~100ms compared with ~16ms for the R5, it would be of no use to me).
Fair enough that you need a fast prime for dawn and dusk. But, it is as illogical to say that the RF 100-500mm is "overrated" because it doesn't fulfil all your particular needs as it would be for me to say the RF 400/2.8 or the 600/4 are "overrated" because they are too heavy for me to hike with and don't focus close enough for my purposes.
Fair. I’m using the term overrated here because it’s really one of the only lenses people defending Canon for the wildlife genre point to, along with the even slower plastic fantastic f/11s. The 100-500 is usually the first lens to come up in defense, and then people pile on saying how wonderful it is. My argument is that sure, it’s sharp, and light. But it’s also not a serious wildlife lens as you can’t get the critters at their peak times and you essentially have to walk around with a wonky setup of using an extended lens with the TC. Can it yield great photos under the right circumstances? Absolutely. I’m glad it exists, and I use it regularly when walking around casually. But no way is this lens a substitute for serious wildlife work, and it’s often mentioned in that capacity.
What do you define as "serious" wildlife work? I think most would agree that the guys shooting the David Attenborough Blue Planet, Planet Earth and Mammals series are doing serious work. They use gyro-stabilised cameras mounted on helicopters, digital cine cameras, high-speed cameras etc and spend months trying to get shots, up in the air, under water etc. They use ARRI Alexa, RED cameras (such as RED Weapon, RED Dragon), and Sony Venice, and Super 35mm film cameras, such as the ARRI ALEXA 65 or ARRI 535. Their default lens is the Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9 (costing only £68,000). Unfortunately, with those T-stops that are close to those of the RF 200-800, it wouldn't be good enough for you and all those who require wider lenses and those guys can't possibly be serious.
Ah, see now we’re devolving. You’ve got plenty of people you can fan out with in the forums who will agree with you that the 100-500 is on par with the gear you’ve mentioned above. I’m not one of them. But I’m glad you enjoy your 100-500 so much. You’re making my prior point for me when I said the 100-500 is overrated, BTW. You just compared it with some of the finest gear on the planet.
I am a lightweight hobbyist and don't claim to be doing any serious photography. What you consider to be serious photography is your own definition, and thank you for providing it. I absolutely never suggested or implied in any way whatsoever that the 100-500 is on a par with the £68,000 Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9, far from it, but just pointed out that the favourite lens of the real serious pros has nearly the same "narrow" T-stops as the RF 200-800!
And yet you also agreed with me above that it was fair to need a fast prime for dawn and dusk, before comparing it to Planet Earth gear and a lens that costs $70k. This is precisely what I’m talking about; it’s a great lens, but I stand by my comment that it’s overrated. If Canon had more options I don’t think nearly as many people would be talking about it.
I agree that if you feel you need a wide lens for dawn and dusk then it is your right for you so to do and it is the solution for you. I disagree with your use of “overrated“ and have pointed out the lack of logic in its use. I do not like your criterion of what is serious photography as it is arbitrary and judgemental. I have no more to say as it has become repetitious.
I definitely WANT to say something about those super-lenses that are coming BUT I will let the BIG ELECTRONICS BOYS talk first to the major news outlets as they use those fancy patents of ours in their upcoming prosumer and professional prime/zoom lenses and DSLR/Video camera products!
I meant no disrespect and apologize if it came off as judgmental. I enjoy the 100-500mm and have had it from day one, but it has its limitations. Would be nice to have more viable options from Canon for dawn and dusk that are competitive with Nikon, and that’s the gist of my frustrations.
