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

[AlanF]

I went through this in 2020, comparing the RF 100-500mm with the EF 100-400 II, EF 400mm DO II and the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Basically, the 100-500 was just about as sharp as the Nikon prime, outresolved the DO II (and with the RF IIxTC outresolved the DO II with the EF 2x) and as a bare lens was a match for EF zoom at 560mm. So, the two EF and the PF were quickly sold. What I find surprising now is that on the R7 the RF 100-500mm is slightly sharper than the RF 200-800mm at 500mm but it is vice versa on the R5. By the way, the RF 200-800mm at 800mm f/9 is sharper than the 400mm DO II at 800mm f/8 with TC as I can see from looking at my old tests. Also, as I have written before, the R7 + 100-500 rivals the R5 + 200-800mm. But, when you add the RF 2xTC, the R5 pulls ahead.

 

[docsmith]

The next day compared to the above photos. Similar time of day (~3 pm). Same bird feeder, ~27 ft/8 m distance. This time, I was trying to compare the 100-500 w/1.4TC against the 200-800 with and without the 1.4TC.

Unprocessed headshoot. all--R5, 1/1250, ISO 3200, f/10 or f/13 (200-800 w/TC)

RF 100-500 w/1.4TC @ 700 mm

A second one just as that first of the Junco isn't great...



RF 200-800 @672 mm


RF 200-800 w1.4TC @990 mm


RF 200-800 w1.4TC @1120mm


A few other comparisons:
Cardinal Headshots:
Unprocessed: 100-500 @700


Unprocessed: 200-800 @ 990mm



Processed: 100-500 w/1.4TC at 700 mm


Processed 200-800 at 672 mm

edit..and @1120 mm


Two great lenses. In the grand scheme of things, the 100-500L is extremely good and the above images are very much usable especially once cropped to the entire bird and processed. But my conclusion is that the RF 200-800 is winning out, especially with the 1.4xTC. Which, I am somewhat relived by (confirmational bias?), as I already bought the 200-800. But, I am actively looking into selling my EF 100-400II and upgrading to the 100-500L. I can get more reach than with the EF 100-400II, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 200-800. I travel a lot and the RF 100-500 would both pack better and fit in most hotel safes.

So, the 100-500L being extremely good, but the 200-800 being slight better on the R5...is essentially what @AlanF has already told us . But, just some illustrations from my bird feeder.

 

[AlanF]

The next day compared to the above photos. Similar time of day (~3 pm). Same bird feeder, ~27 ft/8 m distance. This time, I was trying to compare the 100-500 w/1.4TC against the 200-800 with and without the 1.4TC.

Unprocessed headshoot. all--R5, 1/1250, ISO 3200, f/10 or f/13 (200-800 w/TC)

RF 100-500 w/1.4TC @ 700 mm
View attachment 214919
A second one just as that first of the Junco isn't great...
View attachment 214920


RF 200-800 @672 mm
View attachment 214918

RF 200-800 w1.4TC @990 mm
View attachment 214921

RF 200-800 w1.4TC @1120mm
View attachment 214923

A few other comparisons:
Cardinal Headshots:
Unprocessed: 100-500 @700
View attachment 214926

Unprocessed: 200-800 @ 990mm
View attachment 214928


Processed: 100-500 w/1.4TC at 700 mm
View attachment 214924

Processed 200-800 w/1.4TC at 990 mm
View attachment 214925

Two great lenses. In the grand scheme of things, the 100-500L is extremely good and the above images are very much usable especially once cropped to the entire bird and processed. But my conclusion is that the RF 200-800 is winning out, especially with the 1.4xTC. Which, I am somewhat relived by (confirmational bias?), as I already bought the 200-800. But, I am actively looking into selling my EF 100-400II and upgrading to the 100-500L. I can get more reach than with the EF 100-400II, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 200-800. I travel a lot and the RF 100-500 would both pack better and fit in most hotel safes.

So, the 100-500L being extremely good, but the 200-800 being slight better on the R5...is essentially what @AlanF has already told us . But, just some illustrations from my bird feeder.

Great stuff doc. Get the RF 100-500mm and don’t look back. It’s a classic lens. I’ll be using for travel with the R5 and also on the R7.

 

[AlanF]

I posted earlier that the copy of the 200-800mm that I was eventually able to buy was sharper than the copy I had first tested. Yesterday, I had the opportunity of taking more shots of the target rigging under very similar light to previously, but with different sky/cloud colour. The difference in sharpness and contrast at both 800mm and 500mm is noticeable. You simply can't rely on sites that just look at a single copy of a lens - the only one that counts for you is the one you have, and you have to be able to test lenses before final buying.