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.

[March411]

I wouldn't toss these into the not so great category. They are good shots. Do you have the RAW files for these images.

I could be wrong since I wear glasses but if you look at the image of the Owl the grass right in front looks sharp. Grass creates some challenges with AF and it may be a focus point challenge. If you have the RAW image I can drop it into DPP and look at the focus point. If you have both I would be more than happy to show you there focus points. 

It could a challenge with the AF setup. 

[ebiggs1]

Just glancing at the small sample of the owl, I tend to agree with Marc. You may have missed focus on the owl just a tad bit.

The loon is underexposed, you need to expose for the bird and not the scene. However you stripped all exif info.

[JeffXB]

Have you considered renting the lenses you’re most interested in? “Try it before you buy it” might help you make your decision to see which one suits your needs the best, and which one works best on your cameras. If you’re not opposed to buying a used lens, you might be able to buy the lens you rent (rental fee is often deducted from the price if you purchase and keep the lens). 

I recently purchased the RF 200-800 (haven’t been birding with it yet) and found starting out at say 300-400mm the zoom throw isn’t bad. That of course depends on the distance to the subject when you first find it. 

 

[Ceddy]

Thank you, there could be some grass in the owl photo that might have factored in the sharpness of the owl. I do keep the RAW files so at some point I could look at it. I appreciate the offer, at this point I am seeking out opinions on those lenses with the mirrorless. I just got my EF100-400mm USM ii back from Canon, and hopefully for $500 it was tweaked enough to produce the images that I am expecting with the mirrorless. (Fingers crossed!) I appreciate your feedback!

[Ceddy]

Oh I wasn't looking at the color, exposure when using it as an example for my dilemma. I was using it as an example that I feel it is pretty sharp for not being post processed at all compared to the owl photo being very soft. As you and Mark mentioned, you pointed out a very valid possibility as to why the owl wasn't sharp as the focus must've went on the grass. Thank you for your response, I appreciate it!!!

[Ceddy]

Yes, I actually rented the RF100-500mm for the 2nd time since it came out and absolutely love it. I wasn't prepared to go mirrorless when I bought the EF100-400mm USM ii, which is what is bringing me to my dilemma as to if I should trade it in or not. Canon said it's just as sharp and fast as the RF100-500mm on the R-series but I haven't found that to be the case. I do admit a lot is user error and as noted above, I might not have realized that there was other things being focused on instead of my tended target. On the other side, I did send the lens into Canon and for $500 they must've found something that wasn't working properly so I am hoping to get a chance soon to see if the problem is fixed with the R-series or I will trade it. Thanks for the information and experience with the RF200-800mm, I have a few friends who use that exclusively but they go after more static shots than I do, I like the BIF. 

[Ceddy]

I am wondering if you use the RF200-800mm for BIF? If so, are you thinking that's a better choice over the RF100-500mm? Or are you basing the statement on the reach it provides? I appreciate your response so I hope that you will clarify what's making the RF200-800mm the best option-thanks!!

[Ceddy]

I really liked the Tamron however I wanted to get a prime lens and I have the EF100-400mm which I was very happy with on my 6d so I swapped out the Tamron for the EF300 f/2.8L just because that would give me the best "prime" experience without spending mucho bucks...hahaha!

[ebiggs1]

"... for not being post processed at all  ..."

The photo(s) had to have some post editing since they were downsized and stripped of their exif. That brings up  another thought, are you shooting raw? If not you should be. The advantages are huge over jpg but does require an editor utility like DPP4. The good thing about DPP4 is it is free from Canon with every camera purchase.

[JeffXB]

Hopefully the issue is now resolved. Please let us know once you’ve had a chance to go kite shoot some photos. 

I’m using the same lens, EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM, on a recently purchased R6 M2. I’ve only caught one bird in flight image with it so far and I had the settings wrong. I was in the process of shooting something else when the bird flew past. I did manage to catch one decent image (see below), but I had the AF area set to very small area and eye detection turned off. Therefore it focused on a wing and not an eye. Still the wing area is IMHO pretty sharp. I also got a shot of the same bird, a Darter, as it was perched at the edge of a canal drying its wings. All images were shot hand held (had to load a screen shots n not the originals as got a msg file sizes were too large):

1/400s > F7.1 > ISO 125 > 220mm FL 

1/100s > F8 > ISO 400 > 135mm FL (background = sky reflecting off water)

1/100s > F4 > ISO 400 > 400mm FL (background = sky reflecting off water)

Right after I bought my R6 M2 and was trying to figure what all the buttons and dials do (I’m transitioning from an old, borderline antique, Rebel DLSR), I came across a good video on You Tube posted by “Let’s Go Birding” and titled “Canon EOS R6 Mark2: The Ultimate 2.4 Hour Setup Guide, Geared for Bird Photography. Granted it’s not for your specific camera, but most of settings he advises to use will likely be the same on your R5. I’ve only made a few minor changes to my personal settings, such as the AF focal points, and I registered them all as a “C3” setting (auto updates disabled). He gets a bit long winded sometimes, but overall I found the video very helpful; at least as a good starting point for birding.