Thanks.You have mislabelled the first two. The real one with the EF 100-400 + 1.4xTC looks a bit soft to me.
The image is from a smaller set, but it was the sharpest out of that set.
Upvote
0
Thanks.You have mislabelled the first two. The real one with the EF 100-400 + 1.4xTC looks a bit soft to me.
An addendum. I have posted 3 sets of images birds in 3 different threads which are worth bringing together here. These are comparisons of centre crops of shots taken with the R7 + RF 100-400mm vs R5 + RF 200-800mm of small birds quite far away. The differences are, frankly, incremental for these static shots. However, in the final series of a little owl, I've used the RF 2x on the RF 200-800, and it does make a difference. If you are using an R3, R8, R6 etc, the RF 200-800mm will give you significantly extra range over an RF 100-400 or 100-500mm. But, you can do very well with the R7 or other crop cameras and a small, light cheap lens. (I'll continue to use both the R7 and R5).
Here they are with the smaller image first in each case:
...
Fixed that for you.I find I like the background blur in the second images more than the first. It was less distracting for me.
Danny Northrup says you should if you don't have an R7+100-500I am sick and tired of waiting on Tony Northrup to tell me to buy or not buy. So should I buy it for my R5?
You're not helping LOLDanny Northrup says you should if you don't have an R7+100-500
[…]selling the 100-400 II would likely offset the price difference between the 100-500 + 1.4x and the 200-800 and the former would give you as good/better IQ compared to the 100-400 out to 500mm and similar IQ to the 200-800 beyond that, for a similar price.
Thank you for all the clarification and the detailed reply.Basically yes.
The 100-500mm and 200-800mm both at 500mm are very sharp and work well on the R7 as well as on the R5. But, the 100-500mm does seem to have the edge on the R7. The 200-800 at 800mm is not as sharp and there is less advantage of using it on the R7 than the R5. And though I haven't used it myself on the R6 etc, the 800 will be relatively better still.
A higher resolution R5ii will be more like the R7, and 800 wil have less advantage. Even though the resolution may not improve, putting more pixels on small details may remove pixellation and give a better image.
I don't like the 1.4xTC and think it is hardly worth using it in most circumstances. However, I like the RF2x in comparison, and find it works well on the RF 200-800. I've just posted some more images in the Bird Portrait thread with it, and I'll append some more in the next post.
I am an opportunistic photographer while hiking and I am even older than most of the seniors here. I do not like the weight of the RF 200-800 and it's at the very limit for me. I put camo on it this morning and the weight with the R5 is about 3.3kg, and now at the tipping point for me. There's a lot to be said for the R7 with the RF 100-400mm.
The RF 800/11 does outresolve the RF 100-500 + 1.4xTC. Whether that is enough to matter depends on what you are shooting and how far away it is. The question is whether the 1.4x on the RF 100-500mm makes sufficient difference to make it worthwhile. The 800/11 makes a more noticeable increase inn resolution. I've used the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm far more than the 1.4x. If you nail focus, it outresolves the RF 800/11 on the R5. It works very well with the RF 200-800 on the R5.Thank you for all the clarification and the detailed reply.
I find it interesting and valuable that you don’t like the results of the 1.4x and prefer the 2x.
I have an 800/11 here from CPS and used beside the 100-500 and 100-400ii with 1.4x, the 800 is resolving noticeably more than either of the zooms. I was hoping that a 1.4x and the 100-500 together, would bring me close to that level of resolving power.
I have read a few of your posts where you debate the usefulness of the 1.4x and I’m wondering if I might get similar results with 1.4x on the 100-500 as I got with the 800? I know in your comparisons, you’ve said that the 800 outresolves the 100-500 with 1.4tc, but I was wondering if it’s a ‘noticeable’ difference in real world use? (I may have missed that in another thread).
Also, do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on the 2x converter paired with the 100-500?
Agreed too. I think the 200-800 should be left with the zoom at 600mm and zoomed in when required. The AF is not fast at 800mm for flying birds, and it seems slower at acquiring focus in general but it does latch on to eyeAF at longer distances in compensation.Agreed.
If I was to take an issue with the review...autofocus..."exceptional"? "Super-fast"?
No.
In the big picture any autofocus is amazing, in my opinion. But compared to other Canon's I own and use....I would put the 200-800 in the "pretty good" to "good" category.
In terms of MTF, it is sharpest at 600mm. But, as I wrote a couple of posts back, the extra 200mm of focal length ends up giving you more detail at 800mm on the R5. I've no plans to sell my 100-500mm for a few reasons. I want to try them both for really fast flying birds as I think the 100-500 will win. Also, on the R7, the longer focal lengths don't keep up with the sensor and the 100-500 gets most of what you want. And, for travel, the 100-500mm is so much easier to pack.Ron Bielefeld published with 2 months review of the 200-800:
TL;DW: He very much likes it, to the point where he's planning to sell his 100-500L. Like others here have said, he mentions it being sharpest at 600mm. He finds the IS less responsive to things like panning compared to the 100-500L, it sometimes fights you.
@AlanF the play button in the embedded player is placed slightly too high to cover up the grin, changing the starting point to after the unboxing didn't help either. I tried!
I don’t like that the zoom throw on the 4x 200-800 is longer than that on the 5x 100-500.And, for travel, the 100-500mm is so much easier to pack.
To me, it looks more like a slight mis-focus. I regularly use my EF 100-400IIL + 1.4x TC, fully racked out and it's super sharp. The main issue for me is the reduced AF speed and accuracy.You have mislabelled the first two. The real one with the EF 100-400 + 1.4xTC looks a bit soft to me. It's a luxury having both the 200-800 and 100-500 but I'll keep both
Both lenses have the same physical aperture, 70mm, what makes you believe the EF one is brighter? If it's the aperture value reported in the EXIF, that is unrealiable. You can get it to show a 'brighter' value just by telling your camera to use 1/8 stops instead of 1/3 stops. Like the focal length on zooms, the reported aperture value needs to be taken with a grain of salt.[...]DocSmith, The comparision between the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II and the RF 100-500LIS are well documented.
There are slight benefits and deficiencies with both lenses. The EF lens is brighter natively, [...]