Canon RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L vs Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM

[SteveKnowles]

I have a Canon EOS R7 with the kits lens (18-150mm) and the 50mm prime lens. I have been looking at purchasing a telephoto lens for wildlife photography for a while and after much research had settled on the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM due to it's price point, but I'm now having second thoughts. What I don't want to do is purchase the RF 100-400 only to wish i'd opted for something with a longer zoom.

I am therefore considering these two lenses which offer more FL and i'm assuming are better quality.

• RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L
• RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM

What are the pros and cons of each of these lenses, and does one really standout over the other? Both are very similarly priced for a good used one, so the cost comparison isn't really a factor.

Any advice is welcome.

[TomRamsey]

I only own one of the lenses, the RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM, I've had it now for a year and a half.  I absolutely love the lens.  Previous to this my longest lens was 420mm on APS-C.  I use mine on an R6II, so even on a full frame 800mm is a huge advantage over 420mm.  I did a lot of research on the lens seeing a lot of early reviews from real users.  Initially I was concerned  a little about F9 at 800mm, but I live near the coast and shoot a lot on barrier islands, salt marshes, places with good light.  I also shoot a lot in long leaf pine savannas, which do not have as dense a canopy as deciduous forest, so I figured I would be fine.  In fact I have shot a couple of times in denser forests and it was fine.  I actually shoot a lot along the coast before sunrise and the autofocus still has no problem.  And these days, if you do have to shoot at ridiculously high ISO settings, noise reduction in software is good.  And that is a good thing to have, because even if you have an 800mm lens you can still shoot small birds quite a ways out, and need to crop a lot.  It's a big lens, but for me it is easy to handle, stabilization is excellent and combines with the body.  The only unusual thing is that the tripod collar is permanently attached, but easy enough to put in any position to be out of the way.  

I know the RF100-500 is also an excellent lens, but I've never used one.

[kvbarkley]

"i'd opted for something with a longer zoom."

You will always run into a situation where you wish you had a longer zoom. I would go with the 800.

[shadowsports]

@SteveKnowles ,

I own all 3 lenses.  

I suggest you consider the 100-500 or 200-800 for wildlife.  The 100-400 even on the R7 with its field of view equivalence of 640mm might leave you wanting for more reach depending on the type of wildlife and distance you shoot at typically.  The 100-400 is the minimum, a formidable budget-friendly option.

The latter lenses will both give you additional reach that will be more useful to you in the long run.  Although they are both much larger and heavier, I shoot handheld with my 100-500 95% of the time, and at least 50% of the time with my 200-800.  Most of us who shoot with these lenses just accept it as normal. A good monopod or tripod will allow you to stand or sit relaxed or stationary if this is what you are more comfortable with.

[ebiggs1]

The  RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM without even a moment of hesitation. For wildlife you can never have too much FL. Don't worry too much about low f-ratios since modern digital cameras have pretty good performance at higher ISO than even just a few years ago. Anymore I shoot tele with my Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens.

I also have an older first gen super zoom that is 150-500mm and almost always I can readily notice the loss of that last 100mm in FL. 

[SignifDigits]

I assume your text of "100-400" was a typo and you meant "100-500" as that's what you used everywhere else. I think the only reason to even consider the 100-500 would whether the weather sealing of the L lens is important to you.  It is not to me.  The extra focal length is important me and I own the 200-800.  Count me as another vote for the 200-800.   That said, I don't own both and would defer to anyone who does.

[March411]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The  RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM without even a moment of hesitation. For wildlife you can never have too much FL.

---

I own both but have to agree with ebiggs, if you are only purchasing one go with the most FL you can afford. I often use and carry the RF100-500mm for wildlife as well at the RF100-400mm but it is really based on the shooting location. If I am in dense tight forests the RF100-500mm is my normal carry, anything outside of that I carry the RF200-800mm. For it's length it offers a lot of flexibility. While the minimum focus distance pushes you away from subjects you can still get great, sharp images for it being a long lens. Weather sealing on the RF200-800mm isn't meant for tough conditions but I have used mine in light ran with zero issues.

• 200mm: 2.62 ft
• 400mm: 5.91 ft
• 600mm: 9.19 ft
• 800mm: 10.83 ft

Both of these were taken on the same trip with the RF200-800mm. The IQ is pretty nice for a $2000 long lens. The level of detail in the Dragon fly would have you thinking it was shot with macro,