RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm vs RF 800mm on R7 and R5

[AlanF]

I have been asked to post my tests comparing the RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm. Unfortunately, I had only a few minutes with it at the local dealers and couldn't put it through my usual extensive tests but I do have some useful results on the relative resolution on the R5 and R7 vs the RF 100-500mm and RF 800mm. I have been taking photos of the rigging of a flagpole about 100m from the dealer for the past 10 years for quick testing. It has sufficient variation in the details of ropes, metal cables and stitching to see how well lenses and sensors resolve. The weather was unfortunately overcast on the testing day. Here is the flagpole taken at 500mm on the R5.

 

[AlanF]

First, R5 Output from DxO PL6, Lens Sharpening off. DxO doesn't have lens sharpening yet for the 200-800, so I turned it off for the other lenses to make the comparisons fairer.

R5+200-800mm vs R5+800mm
Very close, maybe 200-800mm slightly ahead.

R5+200-800mm vs R5+420-700mm
800mm slightly ahead of 700mm

R5+200-800mm vs R5+100-500mm
500mm not quite able to resolve cable, bottom left.

R5+200-800mm vs R5+100-500mm x 1.6 using Topaz High Fidelity mode
500mm still unable to resolve cable, bottom left, but coarser details similar.

R5 + 200-800+1.4xTC at 1120mm vs R5 + 100+500+2xTC at 1000mm, with DPP4 + DLO + denoise using Topaz
The-digital-picture has the 1000mm sharper, and I find better contrast and sharpness as well.

 

[AlanF]

R7, I used Canon's DPP4 for all these with DLO. I didn't apply any additional noise reduction.

R7+200-800mm vs R7+800mm
Very close, 800mm slightly ahead.

R7+200-800mm vs R7+100-500mm
Both have similar resolutions

R7+200-800mm vs R7+100-500mm x 1.6 using Topaz High Fidelity mode
The 1.6x resolves just as well, and output looks better. Maybe finer detail would be resolved by 200-800 where 100-500 would fail.

 

[AlanF]

Comparison of R5+200-800mm vs R7+100-500mm
R7 pretty close.

 

[AlanF]

Conclusions. I have done dozens of tests comparing the resolution of the 800mm f/11, which appears to be very similar to the 200-800 f/9 both for me and TDP charts, with the RF 100-500mm on the R5 and R7. The 800mm gives about 20-25% more linear resolution than the 500mm f/7.1, rather than the 60% expected from the extra 300mm of focal length. Accordingly, the 800mm is about equivalent to a 600mm lens. On the R5, you can see the extra resolution is just enough to bring some extra fine detail in. On the R7, the extra resolution with its sensor makes both lenses reveal the same amount of detail.

The R7 with the RF 100-500mm is pretty well equivalent to the R5 and RF 200-800mm in terms of reach and IQ. In theory, the 800 should give more reach but the 500 is a sharper lens.

 

[Click]

Thank you for taking the time to do all this work.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]The R7 with the RF 100-500mm is pretty well equivalent to the R5 and RF 200-800mm in terms of reach and IQ. In theory, the 800 should give more reach but the 500 is a sharper lens.

The ' the 800' above, is that the RF800 f/11 STM or the 200-800?

 

[Old Sarge]

Thank you, Alan. I always appreciate your messages, even when they go over my bald head. This was clear enough even I could understand it. Thanks again.

 

[AlanF]

The ' the 800' above, is that the RF800 f/11 STM or the 200-800?

The 200-800mm at f/9 is very similar to the 800mm f/11 from what I can see and a little worse on the TDP site so it applies to both.

Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[EricN]

Conclusions. I have done dozens of tests comparing the resolution of the 800mm f/11, which appears to be very similar to the 200-800 f/9 both for me and TDP charts, with the RF 100-500mm on the R5 and R7. The 800mm gives about 20-25% more linear resolution than the 500mm f/7.1, rather than the 60% expected from the extra 300mm of focal length. Accordingly, the 800mm is about equivalent to a 600mm lens. On the R5, you can see the extra resolution is just enough to bring some extra fine detail in. On the R7, the extra resolution with its sensor makes both lenses reveal the same amount of detail.

The R7 with the RF 100-500mm is pretty well equivalent to the R5 and RF 200-800mm in terms of reach and IQ. In theory, the 800 should give more reach but the 500 is a sharper lens.

The most important part for me is :

The 800mm gives about 20-25% more linear resolution than the 500mm f/7.1, rather than the 60% expected from the extra 300mm of focal length. Accordingly, the 800mm is about equivalent to a 600mm lens

I don't think it's shocking (there's no such thing as free lunch), but it is a little disappointing. I'm interested in how well the AF can compare.

 

[danfaz]

The R7 with the RF 100-500mm is pretty well equivalent to the R5 and RF 200-800mm in terms of reach and IQ.

Thanks, Alan!
I'm getting some good results with the R7/100-500 combo, and these tests have confirmed for me that I don't need the 200-800.

 

[Maximilian]

Conclusions. I have done dozens of tests ...

Alan, thank you very much for your field tests, your efforts and the detailed conclusions.
Should be very helpful for many.

Now let's have a look at the dragonfly series with 1,5 m FD for all of them, too. Just kidding

I'm interested in how well the AF can compare.

And your impressions on the AF are also highly welcome, @AlanF .

 

[EricN]

Thanks, Alan!
I'm getting some good results with the R7/100-500 combo, and these tests have confirmed for me that I don't need the 200-800.

You really have been getting some great shots.

 

[EricN]

Alan, thank you very much for your field tests, your efforts and the detailed conclusions.
Should be very helpful for many.

Now let's have a look at the dragonfly series with 1,5 m FD for all of them, too. Just kidding


And your impressions on the AF are also highly welcome.

I don't know if I can make impressions as I don't consider myself skilled enough. Generally, I use single point af which isn't really utilizing the technology.

 

[Maximilian]

I don't know if I can make impressions as I don't consider myself skilled enough. Generally, I use single point af which isn't really utilizing the technology.

Sorry, I was addressing Alan, but my post wasn't clear. Now corrected.

 

[AlanF]

Alan, thank you very much for your field tests, your efforts and the detailed conclusions.
Should be very helpful for many.

Now let's have a look at the dragonfly series with 1,5 m FD for all of them, too. Just kidding


And your impressions on the AF are also highly welcome, @AlanF .

Until Canon starts diverting sales to the UK, there won't be any more testing from me.

 

[EricN]

Sorry, I was addressing Alan, but my post wasn't clear. Now corrected.

It's my fault for misinterpreting.

 

[EricN]

Until Canon starts diverting sales to the UK, there won't be any more testing from me.

I hope they'll do it and you'll get a chance to do some real testing soon, then.

 

[Maximilian]

It's my fault for misinterpreting.

Definitely not!
It was mine, as I was quoting you but wanted to talk to Alan.
And just as I wrote at first, I would have felt addressed there, too.

 

[EricN]

Definitely not!
It was mine, as I was quoting you but wanted to talk to Alan.
And just as I wrote at first, I would have felt addressed there, too.

This is rare, isn't it? Two people having a disagreement about wanting to apologize