EF 100-400mm vs RF200-800mm vs RF100-500mm: Best for birds in flight?

[Ceddy]

EF100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 IS II USM vs RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM vs Rf-500500 f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

Pairing with a R5 and R7, with all other factors aside, which is the better lens for sharpness for shooting "birds in flight" between these 3 lenses? I currently own the R5, R7 and EF100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 IS II USM.

Trying to decide if upgrading is necessary to achieve sharpness.

[ebiggs1]

"...the narrow view and having to re-grip to zoom does not make it a good choice."

The "narrow view" has nothing to do with it, a moot point, since the 200-800mm has all the FL available. If a certain FL is "better" I.E. 400mm and 500mm and is what you want and need select them. However, if 600mm or 700mm or 800mm  FL is what you want and/or need those lesser lenses don't have that option.

In two of the samples you offered I doubt seriously you had any trouble "re-grip to zoom". Even the BIF looks pretty simple to obtain. A good photographer will know with a good guess what FL is close for the shot also limiting the amount of "regripping" necessary.

I use the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens which is a big heavy lens and have little difficulty using it for BIF. You can never have too much FL and there is no substitution for native FL. But if you think you can do all you want with 400mm or 500mm Canon is there ready and willing to sell you those lenses.

As to IQ all of these lenses has great IQ and the debate of how great or how much is needed will never end. Fair to say all are beyond adequate in the IQ spec.

[March411]

Appreciate your thoughts ebiggs. Having all three and using them regularly I was simply giving the OP my opinion on the each as he/she requested. 

I would add that the RF 100-500 is also shorter fully extended then the RF 200-800 is fully collapsed and the RF 200-800 is a little over a pound heavier. When loading a bag the RF 100-500 an easier carry and just as nice in the field. 

Also, owning the Sigma monster EF 60-600mm I understand what you are saying, I've grabbed some excellent image of BIF. It's a bit more work panning the beast but your assessment is correct. We simply have different opinions from a hands on user perspective of the three pieces of glass the OP inquired.

[Ceddy]

Fantastic shots! I appreciate the more in depth response!

[Ceddy]

Thank you for your response. I agree, if money were no object there are VERY clear choices. 

[Ceddy]

Thank you to all who replied and gave their advice off of their own experiences. I used to own the 6d mkii and paired it with the Tamron 150-600mm g2 and the EF100-400mm usm ii and got some fabulous captures. Debating about upgrading to the RF100-500mm, the Canon's reps have sworn the EF100-400mm usm ii is very comparable to the since I already own it. I am waiting for the EF100-400 to come back from Canon and will try it again to see if I notice any differences in both the response for BIF and even static shots. I will be the first to admit that I am not a fantastic photographer nor do I post process so I would go with 90% user error however apples to apples to what I have shot in the past with my Tamron 150-600mm g2 and EF100-400mm usm ii paired with the Canon 6d mkii, I notice that even my static shots are soft. Maybe my expectations are much greater using a mirrorless or maybe my camera settings could be off as well? ugh, that poses a whole new debate! Ugh....I appreciate the responses, thank you!!!

[March411]

Ceddy,

The Tamron 150-600mm G2 is reported to be a pretty sharp lens. I don't remember, are you using the Canon EF/RF adapter?

Also have you used/tried Canons Digital Photo Professional to look at your focus points? Its a nice piece of software for reviewing images, checking focus points and culling bad images. 

[ebiggs1]

My main point was the issue that the 800mm would be more difficult to track BIF because it is 800mm. The reason being that 400mm and 500mm are available so it is not a consideration. And the fact that more FL is almost always if not always a good thing made even more positive you don't have to use it if you don't want or need it. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. And again the regripping is mostly a moot point because zoom, or FL, is better judged before you try to do BIF. Not a good procedure to have it set to 200mm when you know you want or need 600mm or more FL. This should be helped by experience.

"...the RF 100-500 an easier carry and just as nice in the field."

I know I am a little short sighted on size and weight because I am a bit over 6'2" and 220 lbs so weight never concerns me. I sometimes carry the big Siggy Sport on a 1 Series and a 24-70mm on another 1 Series at the same time. However, since I am nearing 80 I don't do it as often as I used to. But I know weight is a factor to some and if weight is a major factor that person should perhaps consider a different subject for their photography or even a different hobby. Photography is what photography is and certain facts and physical attributes are what they are. Accessories like the fantastic Black Rapid shoulder strap for instance can be a big helper. I have three of them.

Look makes no difference me what lens people use if it does what they want I merely pointed out the better choice for a wildlife, BIF, lens VS lens. Any lens can be used for wildlife photography but there is always a best option and right now, today, it is the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens. A couple years ago it was one of the 150-600mm super zooms with the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 being the best of that bunch.

[Ceddy]

I have Canon adapters on both the  R5 and R7. Thinking I will be dumping the EF100-400mm as I also have the EF300mm f2.8L IS II, and have tried it on both bodies. Although it's not apples to apples for lenses (telephoto vs prime) static shots should be crisp from both lenses. I was very happy with the EF100-400 with the 6d, so I'm thinking it's just not performing well with the mirrorless bodies. 

[ebiggs1]

"... owning the Sigma monster EF 60-600mm ..."

I tried to like that lens but just never did and did not buy one. I just never got the whole idea behind it and think Canon was much wiser to make the short side of their super zoom 200mm. The fact is nobody buys a big heavy super zoom to use a slow 60mm not even 150mm. Super zooms are at the long side way, way more often than they are at the short side. 

I suspect that would not be such a factor if the FL you are considering is one of the 100-400mm zooms. But a 100-400mm isn't a good wildlife or BIF choice either as much better options out there. 

[Ceddy]

Canon R7 with Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USMCanon 6d markii with Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Here's a couple of "not so great" photos but for the purpose of a comparison using the same lens (Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM with the different bodies. The Great Grey owl was shot with the Canon R7 and the Loon with the Canon 6d mark ii. I feel the GGO should've been tack sharp as it wasn't moving at the time of the photo. I've also taken of the Great Blue Heron that was sitting less than a foot from a boardwalk that should've been tack sharp as well with the R5 and it wasn't.