วีดีโอ

This is easily the best comparison I have seen. Amazing job and thank you for taking the time to make this video sharing your knowledge!

Thanks - I like the style of your review.

Upgrading? From the 100-500 to the 200-800?

Well, when you make me struggle with you opening a box, it is a waste of my time. Thank you.

Nice review. I waited a long time before I bought the RF200-800. The weight, lack of removal tripod foot and the light needed for it to work well vs my RF100-500. I have only had the 200-800 for a few weeks but my concerns were justified. What I like it not having to put a teleconverter on it and the problems with the RF100-500 and a teleconverter. If the teleconverter worked as it should with the RF100-500 I never would have gotten the RF200-800. On a bright day and in open areas such as plains where you can't get close, this is a great lens. For a quick light lens and shorter distances then the RF100-500 is the best. I have not tried the 1.4 or 2X converters on the RF200-800 yet. I. know the 1.4 works well as I have seen lots of pics on TH-cam. If money is not a problem or you are a professional photographer, then the RF200-800 is something to have. If not. then deal wit the tele converts and the RF100-500 when the extra reach is needed.

I think instead of the leveling ball I might go with a leveling base by Innorel or other and keep the middle as low profile as that.

Interesting review, But 2 questions for you, Why does every one review the 100 - 500 v 200 - 800, both lens's are over 2 grand EACH, Why has no one tested the Sigma 150 600 against the the 200 - 800? The sigma is well sub £1k, in fact around £1500 cheaper. pair with a tele 1.4, you have same weight, longer reach ( 820) and faster lens. We are not talking professional photographers earning their living on the images, but it is clearly targeted at the amateur photographer, I have the Sigma, and the R7, I don't see any need to upgrade my camera to full frame, but I am wondering about the 200 - 800 lens, but I can't see any reason to spend over £2k when I am happy with the Sigma. And since every one is shying away from comparing them, there has to be reason, i.e., no gain.

Very nice review, Thak You. But, escused me just one thing : you don't show how is hard to put on the lenscoat on the lens. Thanks

Great video

So what I Gather from your experience.. on the video. The 100-500 would be best paired with the R7 and the 200-800 with a full-frame...? Please let me know your opinion.. I own the r7.. and don't want to over spend with a lens I won't like. Thx

Hi... I shoot the r7... I don't know which lens to pick. This 200-800 or the 100- 500.. I will be replacing my current and old tamrom 70-300 with the rf 70-200mm 2.8..soon but after that lens ill need extreme zoom.. I don't know what I should get.. the r7 isnt as good in low light as its not a lower pix full frame .. which would you use.. please, please advise.. I really value your advice..

Hey Phil, Really enjoyed that mate, as you know I’ve got the 1-5 and love it as my go to lens, light quick and pretty good in low light, and for hand held BIF’s dam good! Used the 2-8 on an R5 over the winter, nice and good AF in good light, bit on the weighty side but all in all a great lens and not a bad price! Will probably get one when I’m running tours in Costa Rica next year, just don’t tell the wife 😝👍. Nice work buddy, and about that packaging 😅😅😅. Cheers Rich 👍

Its Mistletoe in the trees. Great videos, watched on a Sunday afternoon, in Canada

Thanks for this review! Since the 200-800 is not available nowadays and since the 100-500 is also pretty useful for landscape photography, I am going for the latter. (availability being prime concern). Additional teleconferters do make it a costly affair though. 😢

Will R3 or R5 minimise issues with this lens noise.

Yea... problem about these long lenses are their size and weight really matters. I wont mention price because if you can afford you can if not save up and you could. But weight and size of it is something we have no control of. And it really matter because it affects how you can bring it out to use it ornot... The experience out in the field.. and what bag or tripod you need to use.. (take into account of bringing the gear on a airplane as well) etc etc.. The same problem with those huge long prime.. 1 may be able to afford but to bring it out .. is really a concern. The 100-500 suddenly look so small beside the 200-800.

Great review. Thank you for all your work in compiling this.

I really prefer the RolanPro covers for lenses. I have one on my 100-500mm and 200-800mm. The LensCoat neoprene covers fray at the edges in a year. This doesn't happen with RolanPro. The noise you're hearing, is the lens constantly trying to auto-focus? I have Continuous AF turned off in my camera settings. I use the R5. I sold my R7 but even when I had it, Continuous AF was turned off. I only recently got my 200-800mm. I've only had one day out with it. I didn't notice that sound you're hearing but will pay closer attention next time. Great review and comparison between the lenses. Thank you!!!

⁠My 200-800 shipped today! Should have it on Thursday! Now I can do my own testing. also, I had been using my r7 with the 100-500 but now I can use the r5 instead, giving me more pixels per duck at the same focal length, so the r7+100-500 no long has an advantage. Now, I know a professional bird photographer in FL who claims the r7+200-800 works great in good light but you need to use a high shutter speed. Unlike you in the UK, we have many sunny days here in SE USA. We shall see!😊

That packaging is so that the lens is protected if the box takes a knock. I would rather see that than the alternative.

I appreciate that canon use 2 boxes which means to me they care about keeping this lens secure while in transit. The way boxes give the lens more protection for shipping through the awful Parcel Force, DPS, model, third party amazon couriers who do not give a rats arse about damaging customers parcels.

Outdoor photography gear have a neoprene lens cover for the 200-800 lens. As a bonus they're made in the UK and are much higher quality than the lenscoat brand as well as being cheaper!

You are the first TH-cam reviewer to mention the noise from the RF 200-800. Jan Wegener and Scott West (Wild Alaska) both use this lens frequently for birding and neither noted any noise. Is it perhaps you are just very sensitive to it? It would be helpful to demonstrate the noise by holding the camera and lens up to your mic. The biggest problem with putting a teleconverter on the 100-500 is losing focal length at the short end. You have to extend the lens to 300mm just to mount the converter, so you end up with a 420-700mm zoom. If the subject moves towards you, you can find yourself too close to it. The 200-800 is both 100mm longer at the long end and shorter at the short end, while being a 1/3 stop faster at the long end. The 200-800 is thus much more versatile.

The plastic trays inside the big box keep the small box both suspended in air and secure within the big box. It's probably as safe to transport, and perhaps safer, than bubble wrap.

Nice honest review 👍

R6 mark 2 is the way to go with the 200-800 lenses

As far as the noise in the lens being always on try shutting off Continuous Auto Focus in the focusing menu which keeps the lens continually focusing even when not pressing any buttons and by default keeps the image stabilizer going also continuously

I’d give you two 100-500’s for one 200-800….. straight across. The 100-500 is all but worthless to me. Not long enough about 95% of the time. And it sucks (being barely contractable) with TC’s. If you shoot big stuff, or larger BIF, Hawks, Eagles and such, the 100-500 might be okay, but for being no faster than it is, I still believe it’s way overpriced. I have rented both the 100-500 (and it did nothing for me) and the 200-800, and I absolutely loved it. I’d absolutely be using it now, if Canon would ever get their chit together and make enough of them to catch up ☹️ They will probably finally be available right at the same time they announce the R7 Mk II, and then I will be really torn. I love / hate. MyR7’s, but they really need some upgrades badly. Still better than my R5 was (for my purposes) but it could be SO much better…. FF sucks for my purposes.

brilliant review mate well done

I have an R5 and use both lens for wildlife photography. i agree with you the 100-500mm it is a better choice! Nice video!

I'd rather have the RF200-800mm and have an R7 and R5/R6 cause it is usable on both depending on external factors than having a 100-500mm and only usable on R7 as for full frame it is too wide. TC's are a big no for me but everyone to his own.

background music too loud 🔊🔊🔊🔊

Hi Phil, A genuinely great comparison video & very relevant to myself having recently made the switch to an RF mount body (R6ii) & still currently using adapted EF glass. I was seriously considering the 200-800 & the 100-500L (sure I would love a 600 F4L - but erm… 💰💰💰) & I was always leaning towards the 100-500L with maybe a 1.4x if absolutely necessary. Watching this has really nailed that for me, & later down the line there could be an option to add the 200-800 or indeed Canon may have released something else by that time. Ideally I’d like to see them challenge Nikon’s ‘budget’ 180-600 lens but with a 100-500 & now the 200-800 already in the line up of telephoto zoom lenses - it’s unlikely I guess. Interesting you mentioned the weight of the Sigma 150-600C being front heavy, I currently use the Sigma 60-600 Sports & that is super heavy to handhold. I guess after 6 years I have just mastered it; or learnt to live with it. No I don’t have a 100% keeper rate, but who does? I’m looking forward to getting the RF native glass & doing away with the adaptor, & a 100-500 will be my first RF glass purchase. Thanks Phil. Keep on keeping on buddy! Best, Nick

Awesome review, thanks. I use my R7 with the RF 100-500 for birding, occasionally adding the 1.4x TC for extra reach. I was tempted by the 200-800, but you've persuade me to save my money. Lovely photos, thanks for sharing.

Nice review. What I would like to see is the comparison of Canon r7+100-500 to Canon r6+200-800 (apsc+better optics to full frame+reach).

The statement about f stops and amount of background in focus is wrong. The F9 on full frame is still F9 on crop sensor. The idea of f-stop equivalent is for filling entire frame on both sensors - that means using longer focal length on full frame and that means increasing magnification and that means reducing depth of field. In order to bring that depth of field to the size it has on crop sensor the lens has to be stopped down 1.6 times just as the focal length was increased 1.6 times. It is easiest to remember that depth of field depends only on magnification and aperture. If the lens is set at the same focal length and f-stop on full frame and crop sensor then it will produce exactly the same image - it can not be any other way because the lenses in the lens and aperture blades are in exactly the same position. All the sensor can do is to crop larger or smaller part of that image.

I am not SONY guy, but their 200-600 lens is unbeatable. For Canon users is still the best Sigma 60-600 so far.

im your 500th sub 🥳🥳

The 100-500 is so portable. I was actually thinking of getting a 600 f4 but realized the best lens in the world is worthless if you don’t have it with you. I was stunned at how sharp it is and I have the 300 2.8 and the RF 100-300 2.8 and the EF 100-400 mark II. If the 200-800 is competitive with the 100-500…that is impressive for the price point. Having watched your video and given my experience I would again get the 100-500 and the 1.4 TC. Also your R7 experience matches mine. Everything works better on my R6…but sometimes you just need the APS/C.

Great review other than your comments on the packaging. I have R6mkII, R7, RF 100-500mm, 1,4x extender and RF 800mm f/11. R7 in good light + 800mm is great also for fast flying eiders and ducks. Of particular value to me was you tests of image quality of the 200-800mm compared with the L lens + extender. I'll likely in a year upgrade my 800mm to 200-800mm in spite of the higher weight. Faster focusing, much lower close-up distance, advantage of other than 800mm focal range. For use primarily with my R7.

Even though I have the R6 and R7 (R6 for landscape and R7 for wildlife) after seeing this I am leaning towards the 100-500. Still out of my price range ATM as 100-500 is $4100AUD(sale) v 200-800 $3100(sale). The Sigma 150-600 will do for now.

Nice review. You covered a lot of info. I hope you can make some more videos comparing that equipment you have. Take care.

Nice job videoing the kestrel in a dive to catch that prey!

Just a quick comment about your comment on packaging. Having worked at a freight company unloading and loading packages, believe me you do want that extra box for extra protection. Boxes do get thrown around and dropped quite often. Cheers. Now for the rest of the vid as I own the R6 and R7 as well with the Sigma 150-600.

I agree with you on the focusing of the r7 vs a full frame camera like the r6. i have noticed this several times myself. For some reason that crop sensor just doesn’t “see” as well as its full frame cousins.

Why would you expect a bag with this lens? It’s less than $2k USD. Putting a bag in the box that no one would just would just drive the price up, or cut into their ability to make a profit. We need Canon to be profitable to get them to make products like this! The hood is something that almost everyone would use, which is not true for the budget lenses that Canon sells. Again, Canon has done this the right way and have brought value to their customers.

Hi that a real complete review👏👏👏 even if I’m not a Canon shooter. You Canon users are lucky as you can adapt old big prime to RF mount and it seems to works quite well. The price of both lens match the price of an 500mmf4 which with the r7 and r6 is solid option for low light cause of the aperture. What do you think?

Dear Phil: The box inside a box packaging is very important to protect the lens. Those plastic trays suspend the lens and absorb shock. Also. there is nothing but the lens in thin plastic in the inner box. I’m surprised you would criticize Canon who ships many lenses around the world.

A very interesting and informative video, especially for anyone interested in buying this lens. I have the exact same set up as you and my experiences almost completely mirror yours with a couple of exceptions. My focusing issues don't seem as bad as yours. It's a known 'issue' and it's recommended that you don't shoot at the full 30 fps. Something about the sensor, which is based on an older one, struggling to keep up with new technology. The noise your lens was making was very curious. After you said that I did a direct side by side comparison with my 100-500 and 200-800 and both made a very slight noise but I had to put my ear right up to them to hear it. The 200-800 was slightly louder but until you mentioned it I hadn't noticed it. Maybe your copy is just slightly louder? Hard to tell. If you're still looking for a cover for it, there's a couple knocking around including from RolandPro. I'm certainly happy I got the 200-800 but if I know I'll be shooting birds in flight in lower light I will go for the R6 and 100-500. A couple of points of worth, the first you touched on which is atmosperic conditions making the images look softer. People will be disappointed if they want to take a picture of an animal, small in the frame from a distance and then crop. Because it's larger than the 100-500 I have to use a larger bag making for a bulkier and heavier experience. Finally the lens coating isn't as good. Get a smudge on it, cleaning it with a cloth can be a problem. As a result I now carry around some lens wet wipes. Looking forward to future videos from you using this lens.

Nice one Phil, not a bad way to spend a few hours bud. Keep on keeping on! Best, Nick