I use both. I always start my day with the 100-500 because it's so versatile, but when you need reach, the 800 is great. A (much) cheaper alternative might be the 100-400 and the 800.
Since making this video I picked up an R7, which makes the 100-500mm an 800mm equivalent at the long end, and I've been loving that. So much so that I rarely take out the 800mm, which I've yet to find a good way to transport in the field anyway. I should make it a point to really try out the R7 with the 800mm f/11 (1280mm equivalent), see how usable that combo is in the field. Definitely not versatile, though! :)
Great review mate, I appreciate the effort you made.. I have both these lenses, and agree with your results. The RF800 is very light - great, but... is often a bit long for those closer critter, and the mfd can spoil the fun. My RF 100-500mm is attached to my R5 99% of the time.
Totally depends on the usecase. I have the 100-400 II and the RF 800 F11. the 100-400 (my "100-500L") is great on APS-C for video and low light with its F5.6. But i also use the RF 800 F11 a lot... its fun, you just have to know your limitations! Its still good enough on full frame for less light and on APS-C its a lightweight range monster. With the R7 and 4k60 crop mode, on top the 1,3x crop of digital stabilizer its anything like 3000mm, enough for looking at moon craters on live view, let alone video stacking on the PC to overcome atmospheric and heat haze. But the RF 800s MFD is really bad, thats true, its basically more for absolute beginners and people which want the most reach and compact/light. Small size and weight is a huge plus over any heavy, immobile professional 800mm F5.6 or whatever. The only thing which could be interesting from the professional sector: 300mm 2.8, even "affordable" already. with a 2x TC Mk III you have the option between 300 2.8 or 600 5.6, GREAT COMBINATION for basically any wildlife situation when adding the crop mode on FF body.
Don't know why I've never hit Dutch Gap for birding as I live in Blackstone. Just got a copy of the 800mm so I may have to go check that out soon. Great vid!
It can be a long walk--the full loop is nearly 5 miles, longer if you add on some of the little out-and-back spurs. But I love the variety of landscapes there, and there's always good stuff to shoot! Be aware that part of the loop is closed due to construction right now, supposed to reopen in April. Looking forward to that!
Do you think 800mm f11 on a apsc camera without ibis like canon r50 can take some great pictures in normal day light than 100-500mm crop in as 800mm. i want to try 800mm f11 on canon r50.
Great video. I have an r6 (100-500)and love it. I’m thinking about picking up the r7 now or wait a few months and save for an r5 mk2 or get the r5 mk1 at a discount when the mk 2 is launched. How’s the r5 crop vs the r7? If you had just the r6 and got a second body would it be the r5 or r7?
My first RF camera was actually an R6, but I found myself wishing for more pixels, so I sold it and got an R5 instead. I absolutely love the R5, best camera I've ever owned by far. But all of my previous dSLRs were APS-C bodies, and I was used to the extra reach the crop factor gave to my telephoto and macro lenses--so a couple months back I added an R7 to the bag as well. :) So that's my answer--if you have a full-frame body already, I don't see why you'd add another in the R5, but the R7 would be a great option if you have a use for the APS-C crop factor. That effectively turns the 100-500mm into a 160-800mm, which is pretty awesome! I'm definitely looking at upgrading to the R5Mk2 when it comes out, especially if it's a solid improvement like the R6Mk2 seems to be. I'd better start warning my wife so she's not surprised by that bill...
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your opinion on this. I guess I should have explained my situation more. I’m a touring musician and mainly shot concerts and backstage stuff. On my off time I’ve been getting into wildlife photography to get out side in nature more. The r6 is a wonderful camera but cropping in for lowlight concert photography has been hit or miss. Probably user error but it is what it is. Was thinking the r5 would become may main camera and the r6 my backup. The r7 would be great for birding and wildlife but not so much in concert ,club shows. I want them all. I think if the r7 had the same button layout I wouldn’t hesitate. I really appreciate your insight and hope your having a great holiday. Good luck selling the r5 upgrade to your wife.
@@rebelwithano If I'm not mistaken, the R6 has a slight edge on the R5 in terms of noise at high ISOs--the R5 necessarily has smaller pixels, which means more noise. But that's not to say the R5 has BAD noise, and its 45MP is definitely much more croppable than the R6's 20MP, so that's certainly a benefit. What lenses do you typically use for concerts? I recently shot one with my R5 and the RF 24-105 f/4L and was pleased with the results. With decent stage lighting you usually don't need to go above 3200 ISO to get at least 1/100s shutter speed, which makes for a decent hit/miss ratio unless you're shooting a really high-energy performer. :) I haven't tried the R7 in that sort of situation--I expect it would of course be noisier than the full-frame bodies at 3200 ISO, but still quite usable. I was a little hesitant on the R7's different controls too, but you get used to it pretty quickly! If I were in your shoes, I'd probably keep the R6 for now (maybe add a longer/faster lens if cropping and noise is the issue) and get an R7 for wildlife, and then when the R5Mk2 comes out, sell the R6 to help fund that. Then you have a stellar main camera for concerts, and the R7 could do backup in a pinch (and/or tighter shots on the regular).
Welcome and cheers! Thus far in my life I've only made it across the pond once, to southern Germany. With my interests in nature and history I would very much like to get over there again. Anyway, glad to have you, and thanks for saying hello!
Hi, thanks for the vid. I still do not get the point to keep both lenses. We are talking about only 500g difference between 100-500 and 800. I have the sigma 60-600 and rf 100-500 and thinking about to sell the sigma and adding a 1.4 extender. The 100-500 is really lightweight compared to the sigma :D. And for aprox 200 bucks more, you can by the r7. Well anyway thanks for the review
Thanks for the comment! I did another video recently about using the 800mm with the 1.4x TC, which actually produces some very decent results. It kinda stinks that the RF teleconverters only work with a few lenses, but I can tell you that at least with the 1.4x, there's no discernible loss of sharpness in practical terms. I actually did pick up an R7 recently--I'm sure I'll be making some vids about that soon. With the 1.6x crop factor on the R7, the 100-500mm basically becomes 800mm on the long end--but of course the 800mm becomes 1280mm, which is impressive (but pretty tough to shoot handheld, honestly!). Anyway, for now I'm hanging on to both lenses, but the 100-500mm is definitely the better glass all around. I think you're on the right track to sell the Bigma, since the RF glass coordinates better with the IBIS of the R cameras.
The Sigma 60-600 is a monster in terms of weight, only held it for a moment in a shop and said instantly: NOPE! Also, it felt as plasticy as the 150-600C which was a shame considering the doubled price and really heavy weight. great zoom range tho, if you really need/use the zoom range a lot and want only a single lens... its also a beast of a lens when it comes to performance. Im even using a Sigma 150-600C and a Canon EF 100-400 II, which also "does not make much sense". Well... it depends, the Canon telezoom is light and superb stabilized, also F5.6 is often a charme and very sharp. Best allrounder lens in my opinion, the additional 100mm of the overpriced RF 100-500 i give a pass since Teleconverters are made for fast primes, NOT ZOOM LENSES and 500mm is often too short where the Sigma comes in (with a fair price point!) The Sigma is especially on APS-C just a nearly perfect compromise of weight, focal range and image quality (if there would just a faster APS-C variant exist!). Just poorly stabilized and only good for handheld photo, pretty much unusable for video without tripod. The R7 and 150-600C is basically my standard and "EDC" wildlife combination In special cases i mix between the full frame RP and APS-C R7 and between 100-400 II, Sigma 150-600C and RF 800 F11.
Hello and welcome! :) What camera body are you using? If you're on Canon mirrorless like me (RF mount), the options are a bit limited right now since Canon aren't yet allowing third-party lenses. That said, my absolute favorite lens is the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L, used in this video. It's just amazingly sharp, with quick autofocus and excellent build quality. But it's also expensive! If you have the budget for it, I definitely recommend it, as it will maintain its value and quality while you improve your technique. But if it's too much, I've heard very good things about Canon's 100-400mm non-L lens too. It's not quite as long, and it lacks the L lens' weather sealing, but it's still plenty sharp and useable. You could also consider getting an older EF-mount lens and using it with an EF-to-RF adapter. That can be a cheaper option (especially if you go with a used lens), but the adapter adds bulk and one more item to forget, and the IS/IBIS coordination isn't quite as good with adapted lenses as it is with native RF glass. I hope something in there is helpful!
I tested the 100-500 with a 2x TC and the F14 just hurts too much, the 1,4 TC (or just the R7!) is so much better fitting. I use now instead a Sigma 150-600C, a Canon EF 100-400 II AND the RF 800 F11. All of these lenses have significant advantages: - 100-400 II : "lightweight", fast AF, good stabilized, fast aperture and sharp. I even prefer it over the RF 100-500 because of F5.6 (as R7 user fast aperture is needed) - Sigma 150-600C... poorly stabilized and slow AF, but just the most universal (photo!) lens with 240-960mm for wildlife on the R7 (or more with 4k60 crop video) - RF 800 F11 : i mostly enjoy it on full frame, but on APS-C its crazy reach with 1200mm+ and its super light, perfect for hiking and jumpy wildlife where you have more distance. Btw all 3 lenses costed together less than a new RF 100-500 so i think this combination is fine and i can pick whatever i need or prefer. Especially the RF 800 F11 is amazing on full frame or the Sigma 150-600 on APS-C. The canon 100-400 II only serve me for video and where the F5.6 give me more headroom for the ISO over the Sigma lens.
Great reply, thanks! I recently added an R7 to the mix (planning a review/tips video soon!), and definitely love it with the 100-500mm. The sharpness and stabilization on that lens are great, and even at f/7.1 I generally don't have to crank the ISO above 1600, which still gets me usable images (thanks DXO Pure Raw 2!). I've tried the 800mm on the R7, but handholding and tracking moving subjects at 1260mm is not easy! I do like that the R7's crop sensor gives a larger focus area with that lens--on a FF camera like my R5 it's limited to the center of the frame. I had the EF 100-400mm II as well, that was a great lens indeed! One thing I'd note about the RF 100-500mm, though, is that it only goes to f/7.1 past 450mm or so. Dial it down below that and it's f/6.3; at 360mm it's f/5.6. Still pretty decent reach (especially with the crop) when you need that extra bit of light transmission.
@@wanderland_xyz I really thought about the 100-500L, but in the end i prefer redundancy and more "dedicated" stuff over the "i can do it all" lenses. The Sigma 150-600 is just the ultimate reach monster with zoom on APS-C and the F6.3 are amazing at 600mm, just a little bit on the heavy side but the 60-600 is nearly 2x the weight of the already heavy 150-600 so its "ok". Also, i would rather prefer the RF 800 on full frame over the 100-500 with TC, on APS-C.... well if i could afford probably the 100-500. But still... i dont see any big downside with the EF 100-400 vs the 100-500L as well, its an amazing lens and i would not even see any reason now to get the 3000$ 100-500L. The only thing im missing and i will probably get in the far future, probably sell one of my teles and get a 300mm 2.8 (and 2x TC)... i have seen this combo once and i was IN LOVE! 300 2.8 or 600 5.6, best owl and dark forest wildlife machinegun with a 45MP R5
As much as I enjoyed the bird sounds and images, the snake was awesome!
Gave me a bit of a start, that guy. I wasn't expecting to see scales in a knothole!
I use both. I always start my day with the 100-500 because it's so versatile, but when you need reach, the 800 is great. A (much) cheaper alternative might be the 100-400 and the 800.
Since making this video I picked up an R7, which makes the 100-500mm an 800mm equivalent at the long end, and I've been loving that. So much so that I rarely take out the 800mm, which I've yet to find a good way to transport in the field anyway. I should make it a point to really try out the R7 with the 800mm f/11 (1280mm equivalent), see how usable that combo is in the field. Definitely not versatile, though! :)
Great review mate, I appreciate the effort you made.. I have both these lenses, and agree with your results. The RF800 is very light - great, but... is often a bit long for those closer critter, and the mfd can spoil the fun. My RF 100-500mm is attached to my R5 99% of the time.
Thanks! I've been very pleased with the 800mm's image quality, but the 100-500mm definitely wins for flexibility and overall quality. Love that thing!
Totally depends on the usecase.
I have the 100-400 II and the RF 800 F11. the 100-400 (my "100-500L") is great on APS-C for video and low light with its F5.6.
But i also use the RF 800 F11 a lot... its fun, you just have to know your limitations! Its still good enough on full frame for less light and on APS-C its a lightweight range monster.
With the R7 and 4k60 crop mode, on top the 1,3x crop of digital stabilizer its anything like 3000mm, enough for looking at moon craters on live view, let alone video stacking on the PC to overcome atmospheric and heat haze.
But the RF 800s MFD is really bad, thats true, its basically more for absolute beginners and people which want the most reach and compact/light. Small size and weight is a huge plus over any heavy, immobile professional 800mm F5.6 or whatever.
The only thing which could be interesting from the professional sector: 300mm 2.8, even "affordable" already. with a 2x TC Mk III you have the option between 300 2.8 or 600 5.6, GREAT COMBINATION for basically any wildlife situation when adding the crop mode on FF body.
Hey, great video. Tried to look at the images in the link above but the images did not show?
Thanks for watching! And thanks for the heads-up--looks like I had a plugin conflict, should be better now.
@@wanderland_xyz Yes, It's working now! Thanks!
Don't know why I've never hit Dutch Gap for birding as I live in Blackstone. Just got a copy of the 800mm so I may have to go check that out soon. Great vid!
It can be a long walk--the full loop is nearly 5 miles, longer if you add on some of the little out-and-back spurs. But I love the variety of landscapes there, and there's always good stuff to shoot! Be aware that part of the loop is closed due to construction right now, supposed to reopen in April. Looking forward to that!
Do you think 800mm f11 on a apsc camera without ibis like canon r50 can take some great pictures in normal day light than 100-500mm crop in as 800mm. i want to try 800mm f11 on canon r50.
Great video. I have an r6 (100-500)and love it. I’m thinking about picking up the r7 now or wait a few months and save for an r5 mk2 or get the r5 mk1 at a discount when the mk 2 is launched. How’s the r5 crop vs the r7? If you had just the r6 and got a second body would it be the r5 or r7?
My first RF camera was actually an R6, but I found myself wishing for more pixels, so I sold it and got an R5 instead. I absolutely love the R5, best camera I've ever owned by far. But all of my previous dSLRs were APS-C bodies, and I was used to the extra reach the crop factor gave to my telephoto and macro lenses--so a couple months back I added an R7 to the bag as well. :) So that's my answer--if you have a full-frame body already, I don't see why you'd add another in the R5, but the R7 would be a great option if you have a use for the APS-C crop factor. That effectively turns the 100-500mm into a 160-800mm, which is pretty awesome! I'm definitely looking at upgrading to the R5Mk2 when it comes out, especially if it's a solid improvement like the R6Mk2 seems to be. I'd better start warning my wife so she's not surprised by that bill...
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your opinion on this. I guess I should have explained my situation more. I’m a touring musician and mainly shot concerts and backstage stuff. On my off time I’ve been getting into wildlife photography to get out side in nature more. The r6 is a wonderful camera but cropping in for lowlight concert photography has been hit or miss. Probably user error but it is what it is. Was thinking the r5 would become may main camera and the r6 my backup. The r7 would be great for birding and wildlife but not so much in concert ,club shows. I want them all. I think if the r7 had the same button layout I wouldn’t hesitate. I really appreciate your insight and hope your having a great holiday. Good luck selling the r5 upgrade to your wife.
@@rebelwithano If I'm not mistaken, the R6 has a slight edge on the R5 in terms of noise at high ISOs--the R5 necessarily has smaller pixels, which means more noise. But that's not to say the R5 has BAD noise, and its 45MP is definitely much more croppable than the R6's 20MP, so that's certainly a benefit. What lenses do you typically use for concerts? I recently shot one with my R5 and the RF 24-105 f/4L and was pleased with the results. With decent stage lighting you usually don't need to go above 3200 ISO to get at least 1/100s shutter speed, which makes for a decent hit/miss ratio unless you're shooting a really high-energy performer. :) I haven't tried the R7 in that sort of situation--I expect it would of course be noisier than the full-frame bodies at 3200 ISO, but still quite usable. I was a little hesitant on the R7's different controls too, but you get used to it pretty quickly!
If I were in your shoes, I'd probably keep the R6 for now (maybe add a longer/faster lens if cropping and noise is the issue) and get an R7 for wildlife, and then when the R5Mk2 comes out, sell the R6 to help fund that. Then you have a stellar main camera for concerts, and the R7 could do backup in a pinch (and/or tighter shots on the regular).
Thank you very much for the reply. Your outlook makes sense. Hope you and your family have a great holiday. Cheers.
Oh the lenses I use are 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.
I have similar interests to your self but I am in England and often Spain. Enjoy the videos and have subscribed 🎉
Welcome and cheers! Thus far in my life I've only made it across the pond once, to southern Germany. With my interests in nature and history I would very much like to get over there again. Anyway, glad to have you, and thanks for saying hello!
Hi, thanks for the vid. I still do not get the point to keep both lenses. We are talking about only 500g difference between 100-500 and 800. I have the sigma 60-600 and rf 100-500 and thinking about to sell the sigma and adding a 1.4 extender. The 100-500 is really lightweight compared to the sigma :D. And for aprox 200 bucks more, you can by the r7. Well anyway thanks for the review
Thanks for the comment! I did another video recently about using the 800mm with the 1.4x TC, which actually produces some very decent results. It kinda stinks that the RF teleconverters only work with a few lenses, but I can tell you that at least with the 1.4x, there's no discernible loss of sharpness in practical terms.
I actually did pick up an R7 recently--I'm sure I'll be making some vids about that soon. With the 1.6x crop factor on the R7, the 100-500mm basically becomes 800mm on the long end--but of course the 800mm becomes 1280mm, which is impressive (but pretty tough to shoot handheld, honestly!).
Anyway, for now I'm hanging on to both lenses, but the 100-500mm is definitely the better glass all around. I think you're on the right track to sell the Bigma, since the RF glass coordinates better with the IBIS of the R cameras.
The Sigma 60-600 is a monster in terms of weight, only held it for a moment in a shop and said instantly: NOPE!
Also, it felt as plasticy as the 150-600C which was a shame considering the doubled price and really heavy weight. great zoom range tho, if you really need/use the zoom range a lot and want only a single lens... its also a beast of a lens when it comes to performance.
Im even using a Sigma 150-600C and a Canon EF 100-400 II, which also "does not make much sense".
Well... it depends, the Canon telezoom is light and superb stabilized, also F5.6 is often a charme and very sharp. Best allrounder lens in my opinion, the additional 100mm of the overpriced RF 100-500 i give a pass since Teleconverters are made for fast primes, NOT ZOOM LENSES and 500mm is often too short where the Sigma comes in (with a fair price point!)
The Sigma is especially on APS-C just a nearly perfect compromise of weight, focal range and image quality (if there would just a faster APS-C variant exist!). Just poorly stabilized and only good for handheld photo, pretty much unusable for video without tripod.
The R7 and 150-600C is basically my standard and "EDC" wildlife combination
In special cases i mix between the full frame RP and APS-C R7 and between 100-400 II, Sigma 150-600C and RF 800 F11.
"I can do better" made me subscribe lol 😂
Haha, that's the attitude we should always have, right? Thanks very much!
Hello, just now I subscribed you channel , I am a biggner photographer, please suggest me best lens for wildlife photography.
Hello and welcome! :) What camera body are you using? If you're on Canon mirrorless like me (RF mount), the options are a bit limited right now since Canon aren't yet allowing third-party lenses. That said, my absolute favorite lens is the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L, used in this video. It's just amazingly sharp, with quick autofocus and excellent build quality. But it's also expensive! If you have the budget for it, I definitely recommend it, as it will maintain its value and quality while you improve your technique. But if it's too much, I've heard very good things about Canon's 100-400mm non-L lens too. It's not quite as long, and it lacks the L lens' weather sealing, but it's still plenty sharp and useable. You could also consider getting an older EF-mount lens and using it with an EF-to-RF adapter. That can be a cheaper option (especially if you go with a used lens), but the adapter adds bulk and one more item to forget, and the IS/IBIS coordination isn't quite as good with adapted lenses as it is with native RF glass.
I hope something in there is helpful!
Thanks so much, it's really very helpful to me. Right now I am using EOS R7,
I tested the 100-500 with a 2x TC and the F14 just hurts too much, the 1,4 TC (or just the R7!) is so much better fitting.
I use now instead a Sigma 150-600C, a Canon EF 100-400 II AND the RF 800 F11. All of these lenses have significant advantages:
- 100-400 II : "lightweight", fast AF, good stabilized, fast aperture and sharp. I even prefer it over the RF 100-500 because of F5.6 (as R7 user fast aperture is needed)
- Sigma 150-600C... poorly stabilized and slow AF, but just the most universal (photo!) lens with 240-960mm for wildlife on the R7 (or more with 4k60 crop video)
- RF 800 F11 : i mostly enjoy it on full frame, but on APS-C its crazy reach with 1200mm+ and its super light, perfect for hiking and jumpy wildlife where you have more distance.
Btw all 3 lenses costed together less than a new RF 100-500 so i think this combination is fine and i can pick whatever i need or prefer. Especially the RF 800 F11 is amazing on full frame or the Sigma 150-600 on APS-C. The canon 100-400 II only serve me for video and where the F5.6 give me more headroom for the ISO over the Sigma lens.
Great reply, thanks! I recently added an R7 to the mix (planning a review/tips video soon!), and definitely love it with the 100-500mm. The sharpness and stabilization on that lens are great, and even at f/7.1 I generally don't have to crank the ISO above 1600, which still gets me usable images (thanks DXO Pure Raw 2!). I've tried the 800mm on the R7, but handholding and tracking moving subjects at 1260mm is not easy! I do like that the R7's crop sensor gives a larger focus area with that lens--on a FF camera like my R5 it's limited to the center of the frame. I had the EF 100-400mm II as well, that was a great lens indeed! One thing I'd note about the RF 100-500mm, though, is that it only goes to f/7.1 past 450mm or so. Dial it down below that and it's f/6.3; at 360mm it's f/5.6. Still pretty decent reach (especially with the crop) when you need that extra bit of light transmission.
@@wanderland_xyz
I really thought about the 100-500L, but in the end i prefer redundancy and more "dedicated" stuff over the "i can do it all" lenses.
The Sigma 150-600 is just the ultimate reach monster with zoom on APS-C and the F6.3 are amazing at 600mm, just a little bit on the heavy side but the 60-600 is nearly 2x the weight of the already heavy 150-600 so its "ok".
Also, i would rather prefer the RF 800 on full frame over the 100-500 with TC, on APS-C.... well if i could afford probably the 100-500. But still... i dont see any big downside with the EF 100-400 vs the 100-500L as well, its an amazing lens and i would not even see any reason now to get the 3000$ 100-500L.
The only thing im missing and i will probably get in the far future, probably sell one of my teles and get a 300mm 2.8 (and 2x TC)... i have seen this combo once and i was IN LOVE! 300 2.8 or 600 5.6, best owl and dark forest wildlife machinegun with a 45MP R5