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 have all three focal lengths you mention but my 100-400mm is the RF version. If you held my feet to the fire I would probably grab the RF500 f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM for birds in flight even though I give up 300mm in focal length. Personally the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM narrower view makes it more challenging for tracking and the zoom ring has a much longer throw making me re-grip to fully zoom to 800mm. 

That being said the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM is a darn fine lens too and produces sharp images regardless of what body it's mounted.

[Ceddy]

I guess I should've pointed out "money being instrumental". Hahaha! I have the EF300 which I love with a 1.4tc, as my affordable prime. I was seeking out advice for a walk around bird photography option between the noted lenses. I really like the EF100-400mm but wondering if changing to an RF lens would produce better images or am I already sitting with a good lens. Thanks for the response!

[FloridaDrafter]

Hello, Ceddy!

---

@Ceddy wrote:

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.

---

The RF 100-500 f/5.6-7.1L IS USM is the sharpest of the bunch, then the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II, then the RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS USM. The thing that sets the RF 100-500 above the EF 100-400 for sharpness is the flange distance, it's closer to the sensor so has better resolution. Add the extra 100mm's and the fact that RF is designed for the R series cameras with more contacts and faster AF response, then you get a stellar combo.

I have all three of those lenses and the R5 and R5 II. I used the EF 100-400 on my R5 and R6 when I first bought into the R system. With that first R5, I bought the RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro and quickly noticed how much better the RF lenses performed, so I bought the RF 100-500. I also have the RF 100-400 that Marc mentioned, but that is primarily on my wife's R6 II because it is so light. I've tested it on the R5 series, but that's it. She takes some really nice images of birds with that combo, but no BIF. I bought the RF 200-800 out of curiosity and although, IMO, its OK for the FL and price, it's not a lens I use that often and don't find to be a nice sharp lens. I typically use it on the R5 in well lit conditions and always have to do a bit more work in post to get the results I normally get with the 100-500.

I do own the RF 1.4X tele converter and when lighting permits, use it with the RF 100-500. This gives me 700mm and is sharper than the RF 200-800.

Newton

[March411]

Exactly what Newton said.....😃

[FloridaDrafter]

---

@Ceddy wrote:

I guess I should've pointed out "money being instrumental". Hahaha! I have the EF300 which I love with a 1.4tc, as my affordable prime. I was seeking out advice for a walk around bird photography option between the noted lenses. I really like the EF100-400mm but wondering if changing to an RF lens would produce better images or am I already sitting with a good lens. Thanks for the response!

---

IQ is always a matter of what is acceptable to you. I am very demanding and my wife often says "You are your own worst critic". Be that as it may, I can see the advantage that RF glass brings to the table, both in post and performance. As I mentioned, there are technical reasons why RF is superior to adapted EF, given the lenses are similar to start with, say, you are comparing an RF 100L to an EF 100L or the EF 100-400L to the RF 100-500L, then the RF will be superior. Think of it this way, the RF equivalent of it's EF counterpart is the "mark XXX" of the EF version, at least that's the way I see it. For me, IQ was marginally better, but performance alone was worth the switch.

Newton

[Ceddy]

That's what I was wondering about. I have been leaning towards the RF100-500mm and this gives me a lot to go on. I appreciate the response and in-depth insight! 

[Ceddy]

Fantastic analogy! I am going to take your advice and upgrade. I appreciate your response!!!

[ebiggs1]

This is even a contest the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens is the choice by far.

"the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM narrower view makes it more challenging for tracking..."

The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens has 500mm Included in its FL so a "narrower view makes it more challenging for tracking." is a moot point. 

"...a much longer throw making me re-grip ..."

Look all lenses have their pluses and minuses so each lens has to be evaluated on the total package and not a single spec or perhaps just a  couple. The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens as a package is the real deal and by far the better birder lens.

[March411]

For static subjects I would very much agree, birds in flight the narrow view and having to re-grip to zoom does not make it a good choice. So it may depend on scenarios a person intends to use to each of the lenses mentioned. And I strongly agree that one size doesn't fit all, darn near every lens has some type of compromise.

Shooting all three frequently I would have to agree that FloridaDrafter nailed it, the RF100-500mm is in a class by itself when it comes to sharpness. I would add that tracking and adjusting the zoom range is far superior, at least for me with the RF100-500mm especially for fast moving subjects.

All of these shots are from the same location using the R5 with the RF 100-500mm .The second shot of the Killdeer, it would have been extremely challenging with the RF200-800mm. Because of the fast movement I was racking the zoom to fill the frame and keep the bird in the EVF. I've tried similar shoots with the long lens and my hit rate drops. For larger slow moving soaring birds it is outstanding.

I added the Black Wasp because of the sharpness, one would assume this may have been shot with a Macro.