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.

[Ceddy]

I had to resize them for the purpose of adding them to this thread unless resizing is considered post editing. I shoot in both;  JPEG (those were JPEG photos) because I feel some of my images aren't too bad for being JPEG. I also shoot RAW since I've expanded my photography networking, every photographer's advice is to shoot RAW for the obvious reasons. Although I have tried out LRC, TOPAZ Denoise, I have found that the results are just as crappy as the original so as soon as I get more time to learn, I will try and step up my game. I know I take many crappy shots and your comment about being overexposed actually made me think about my exposure settings more, which I am very open to and appreciate corrective criticism. However with that being said, I don't believe whether or not I do editing on my photos is the purpose of my original question, the quality of my images would be a whole new topic. I appreciate your suggestion of the editor utility, and will try it out!! Thank you for your responses, I hope this doesn't sound snarky!

[Ceddy]

Thank you for sharing these images. I think they're awesome and agree, that a lot could be due to my camera settings as well. I haven't had a chance to try it out now that I got it back but hopefully this week I will get an opportunity. I will check out that YouTube video as they should be the same settings. I am thinking that my focal area might need to be changed too. I appreciate the response!

[ebiggs1]

Every photographer needs to do as they see fit. We all make choices. However, there are consensus that are agreed upon by a the majority of photographer to be the best choices. 

[March411]

It really depends on a persons budget, shooting style and what application they will use in the field with either lens. Having used both frequently for almost a year or more and doing the research prior to and after purchasing the lens there is a lot more information available to potential buyers. Everyone should do an extensive deep dive prior to making a purchase to make a well educated decision.

I own and use both but when I anticipate BIF I lean heavily to the RF 100-500mm over the RF200-800mm for many of reasons below. Maybe its user error but my keeper rate with the RF 100-500 is drastically higher.  

My observations:

• Not as sharp at 800mm especially when subjects are at a distance and atmospheric and weather-related issues can’t be avoided. Sweet spot is 500mm to 600mm
• Almost a two-stop difference over the RF100-500 when are normally BIF is shot mornings and evening when light is less than ideal for a slower lens.
• Several reports of them breaking in half. This information can be found with a simple search. While the volume is unknown many reported that it is not occurring from abuse but occurs in bags and backpacks during normal transport.
• Collar not removable adds additional weight
• At 800mm you are stuck at f9 which will require higher ISO to hit shutter speeds that are usable for BIF
• Chromatic aberrations’ when grabbing high contrast images.

If you visit other sites like FOP and view the BIF forum you will find that a good portion, possibly the majority of the images are documented as being shot with the RF100-500mm. There is a reason for this and remember that the RF100-500mm is almost twice the cost, I believe its the overall quality and results that the lens provides.

Quotes from professionals using the RF 200-800mm 

The 800mm focal length results in a very narrow field of view, making it challenging to locate and track fast-moving birds, particularly at close range.

Slow autofocus at 800mm: While the autofocus is generally fast, it can be slower and less precise at 800mm, potentially struggling to keep up with very fast-moving birds.

Not ideal for quick action. while capable for birds in flight, it might not be the optimal tool for exceptionally quick actions or subjects like pelagic birds in challenging conditions due to potential sharpness and contrast limitations at extreme telephoto ranges compared to some L-series lenses.

For Birds in Flight, 800mm was good for very slow flying birds at long distances, and the bird AF picked them out better against backgrounds. However, for close up ones, I find it difficult to keep them in frame and in the AF didn't seem to work fast enough to keep them in focus. Zooming out to 500 or 600mm did give me very good results.

[Ceddy]

Thank you, I totally agree, however being somewhat new to "true" photography, I value opinions, experiences and tips from photographers who are more versed. I understand that there are a lot of variables so it's not always a clear cut answer, that's why I was trying to be as specific in my question as possible. 

[Ceddy]

Thank you for the in depth response, I feel you've confirmed what I was feeling that the RF100-500mm is a better choice over the RF200-800. I did receive my EF100-400mm back but haven't had a chance to try it out but at least this narrows it down for me. In the future, the 200-800 might be an option but I'm finding if I need more reach, I am probably going to rent anyway as I wouldn't need that much reach for my every day photography. I appreciate your feedback!!

[March411]

If you have the chance to look around, view other sites and do some research you'll see what i was referencing.

Please don't get me wrong, I enjoy my RF200-800 but every tool has it's job. For still wildlife (good light), outdoor sports, it's very nice when you can't get down to field level it produces some nice images. And if you shoot anything at long distance atmospheric and weather-related issues. Longer lens, more reach, well just amplifies those challenges. 

And don't forget you can use the 1.4x extender on the RF 100-500mm but only between the 300mm to 500mm range. 

[Ceddy]

I appreciate the advice and insight. I tried out my EF100-400 yesterday on my R7 and it is performing much better, however, yesterday was a bad day to try as we have the smoke from Canada that is challenging. I think I made up my mind to upgrade to the RF100-500mm however. Still straight out of the camera, I'm not  too disappointing with this shot taken with the R7 and EF100-400mm, handheld.( f/7.1 ISO1000 Shutterspeed 1/2500sec)Thanks again!!! 

[March411]

I think the capture came out nice too Ceddy. That lens looks like it will be a good addition to your lens stable now that you get it fixed.

[ebiggs1]

"... I made up my mind to upgrade to the RF100-500mm ..."

Everybody is different and have different requirements but I really think you need to really think that decision over. The increase from 400mm to 500mm is not going to be impressive and neither is the IQ if you notice any improvement at all. The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens is by far the better choice for a new lens. And once again as I have said before nobody buys a super zoom to use the short end. Nobody! Now of course the best thing is buy both a tactic I seem to have adopted 😁 but unless money is no object that is a very expensive route to take.

Just think you have the opportunity to double your native FL in one lens. And no matter what anybody says native FL is best. No adaptive FL with a tele extender and remember they all have a price to pay for using them. You always give up to get something. Always!  Photography has no free lunch. Think it over.