Is there Much Difference in Quality and FoV?

[Tronhard]

All that has been done is to drastically downsize the images for posting, in part by using a 1:1 format on both.  These were taken within seconds of each other, of the same bird (a Takahe), in patchy available light, hand-held.

To me there is very little difference between the two images, so one can get the same FoV and general performance by using a large capacity camera, and putting it in crop mode with the short FL lens.

EOS R5, RF 100-500 1.6x crop 567mm(equivalent), f/9, 1/250sec, ISO-3200R6, RF 200-800, 570mm, f/8, 1/640sec, ISO-400

[shadowsports]

Great side by side comparison Trevor!

[Tronhard]

Thanks Rick.  The two system configurations can yield very similar results, depending on the resolution one needs.

[Tintype_18]

Very difference to me but the first one seems to be more vivid and crisper.

Edit: Trevor, you have some unique wildlife in your country. Thanks for sharing the photos in the past and for those in the future.

[Tronhard]

Thanks John.  Yep, NZ does have unique birdlife and reptiles.  I must admit I miss the macro mammals of other parts of the world though!   

[Tronhard]

Just came back to this!  Thanks John for your  insight and appreciation.   TBH, there is really not much in it and the variation could sit well within how the camera was held, the specific settings and the light.

[JFG]

HI Trevor,  I agree with Rick, "great side by side comparison".. I also agree with you, there's very little difference between the two images.  The one taken with the RF100-500mm may look a little more vivid, and in my opinion, its only because the red on the beak is showing more, giving it more contrast.   This is  because the bird is looking to its left and showing more of the red on top of its beak.  Meanwhile, in the picture taken with the RF200-800mm, the bird is looking to the right, showing less of the red on the top of its beak, making it seam slightly less vivid (less contrast).  As for the body of the bird and its feathers, the two pictures are  very close with the RF 200-800mm lens showing a bit more depth of field than the one taken with the RF100-500mm.  All in all, the price difference and the additional 300mm, makes the RF200-800mm a very desirable lens, in my opinion.

[Tronhard]

Thanks for your observations Joe:
I think the difference in richness of the beak is, in part because it's in a bright patch of the light on it, whereas the other image has the beak in a shadowed area.  Also, the beaks are not absolutely symmetrically coloured, and one side may be more worn because the birds seem to have a left or right bias as far as digging with their beaks (like our left/right hand biases, but either way, they could be matched if I had made an effort in PP, but then that would have biased the results.

[JFG]

Trevor,  your side by side comparison is great the way you did it.  No biases whatsoever.  Also, it would be great if you did a side by side comparison between the 150-600mm and the 200-800mm..  Just a thought.  😃 

[Tronhard]

Hi Joe:
Sadly, I can no longer do that specific comparison, as I sold my copy of the Sigma 150-600c.  However, I still have my copy of the Sigma 60-600s, which is a somewhat different beast in many ways, but at the long end has the same FoV, which I did note when using them together.  Would  you be interested in that?