RF 800 F11 Stm vs 200-800?

[JEJE12]

Hello

I have room to purchase one more lens and I am hesitating between the RF 800 and the 200-800... Currently I own the RF 100-500 that I sometimes use with the 1.4 extender the 70-200 2.8 and I am really hesitating between these two lens. Sure the 200-800 is a zoom but I have that range basically covered.. and part of me think it might be better to have a prime lens at 800.. I mainly shoot wildlife and use either an R5 or R6... The price difference is obviously a factor and availability as the 200-800 is backordered.. Unless I should wait and see what Sigma has to offer with lenses.. 

Thank you

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings,

No doubt you can put your hands on a RF 800 f11 more quickly than the 200 - 800, and for less money.  

The latter has better magnification, and a closer MFD.  The 200 - 800 is a lot heavier and while it isn't full "L" class, it does have some additional weather sealing the f11 does not.

https://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Canon-RF-200-800mm-F6.3-9-IS-USM-vs-Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-...

The 200-800 is a little shorter if it matters to you.  Both will accepts TC's, and both are 102mm wide and accept a 95mm filter.  The difference in light gathering ability is negligible.  While the RF 200 - 800 is rated f9, it's actually f8.5.  there is only 1 stop between f8~f11 so nothing there as a deciding factor.  

Final thoughts.  When you shoot with your 100-500 with or without TC, do you find yourself using zoom to compose your longer distance shots?  If yes, buy the 200 - 800.  

If not, then you will likely be fine with the 800 f11.  

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings,

No doubt you can put your hands on a RF 800 f11 more quickly than the 200 - 800, and for less money.  

The latter has better magnification, and a closer MFD.  The 200 - 800 is a lot heavier and while it isn't full "L" class, it does have some additional weather sealing the f11 does not.

https://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Canon-RF-200-800mm-F6.3-9-IS-USM-vs-Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-...

The 200-800 is a little shorter if it matters to you.  Both will accepts TC's, and both are 102mm wide and accept a 95mm filter.  The difference in light gathering ability is negligible.  While the RF 200 - 800 is rated f9, it's actually f8.5.  there is only 1 stop between f8~f11 so nothing there as a deciding factor.  

Final thoughts.  When you shoot with your 100-500 with or without TC, do you find yourself using zoom to compose your longer distance shots?  If yes, buy the 200 - 800.  

If not, then you will likely be fine with the 800 f11.  

[p4pictures]

This choice might also be influenced by your camera. When I used the 800mm f/11 on an R5 or R6 I found the AF area was restricted to the central part only - about the same as the square zone AF area. I think you’ll have a larger area of the frame that can be used for focus with a 200-800mm. 

if you have R6 Mark II then the area is a little larger. 

You might want to check the Canon supplemental info 

https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0110.html 

[shadowsports]

Brian brings up a very good point.  I remember providing this info to users late last year. 

Cheers Brian!

[p4pictures]

I've now found a screenshot I made when I had the EOS R6 with the RF 800mm F11 lens fitted, the white frame in the centre is the limit of where the camera will AF with this lens, regardless of the AF method used. Even using 1-point or spot you cannot move it beyond this frame and face / eye detection only works inside this frame too.

[ebiggs1]

It would be no choice for me buy the 200-800mm and sell the 100-500mm to help offset the cost. 800mm with no tel-con every single time not even a question. The truth and the fact is primes have basically run their course. Where they once ruled is no longer true. The exception is fast aperture which you are certainly not getting with the 800mm f11 prime. 

[Tronhard · Accepted solution]

FWIW, I have both the RF 100-500 and 200-800 and they are both excellent lenses.  I did some testing with them as follows: 
I put the 100-500 on the R5 set at 1.6 crop factor.  While this is just like cropping in post, and results in significant reduction in pixels captured, it gave me predictable equivalent Field of View similar to using a 160-800mm lens of a 17MP FF sensor camera.
The 200-800 was used on the R6, rendering its normal FoV range of 200-800 and 20MP.  

I posted one set of results on this post in the Share Your Photos gallery:
Which is Which? - Page 2 - Canon Community
I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions for your purposes, but to me they each have their purpose and do have the potential to overlap, although I note that it would be equally possible to use the 200-800 on the R5 at the 1.6 crop factor to render a FoV equivalent to a FF value of 320-1280mm, again FWIW.   Much depends on the shooting conditions, need for that reach and what you are going to produce - such a measure should be fine for social media, digital display and moderate-size prints.
However, I frankly much prefer the flexibility of the 200-800 over the 800mm lens and at 800 the zoom is a stop faster.