Other Lens or R7

[MrSparks999]

Hi all

Looking to get the RF200-800 when i can (no stock anywhere). However i had a thought, perhaps to get an R7 and use my RF100-500. This options would certainly be cheaper, and with the cropped sensor i would get the 800mm but wondered if anyone had experience of this or thoughts. Currently using the R6 MKii, so R7 would be second body.

Thanks in Advance

 

[MrSparks999]

also does anyone have experience of using the 1.4 extender on the R7 Rf100-500 set up?

 

[Archibald]

I use the R7 and 100-500mm on most outings and it is an amazing combo. You can crop severely and IQ holds up.

I would expect the 200-800mm to be even better for reach, but it is too heavy for me, so I'm not considering it.

I'm not a fan of converting focal lengths when using crop bodies. 500mm is always 500mm. If it goes to 800mm on a crop body, it would also go to 800mm on your R6 II when you crop afterwards. And what about cropping an R7 photo?

I know you are thinking about reach, but that is affected by pixel density and not by format size.

As many have said, the R7 often suffers AF failures, so be prepared for that.

I have considered the 1.4x but am hesitating. It gives more reach but you lose a stop, and will give more aberrations. I don't know of many good comparisons of TC vs cropping. It may turn out that technique is more important. You may not see a difference unless you are shooting on a tripod. I might get one, but it is not a priority.

 

[RedCobra]

Hi all

Looking to get the RF200-800 when i can (no stock anywhere). However i had a thought, perhaps to get an R7 and use my RF100-500. This options would certainly be cheaper, and with the cropped sensor i would get the 800mm but wondered if anyone had experience of this or thoughts. Currently using the R6 MKii, so R7 would be second body.

Thanks in Advance

I did that, but sold my R7 after 3 months due to the AF issues, lack of 3rd wheel, and the different ergonomics from the R5. Get the lens when possible. However, I note that many comparisons between the RF 200-800 and the RF 100-500 with the 1.4TC are favorable. (420-700 @ f/10.0)

 

[SO8]

I had a 100-500 and convinced a lady with an R7 to buy one with a 1.4x converter from our dealers as opposed to wait for a 200-800 as I felt it was to me a better option for her ... she also wouldn't have realistically been able to get the 200-800 for when she needed anywhere as was off to Africa a week after I spoke to her !

If you look at lens comparisons at 500mm the RF 100-500 is sharper. I expect with the 1.4x converter it will still be noticeable better than the 200-800 and give loads more options / flexibility.

The RF 1.4x converter is not big at all and the RF 100-500 is a stunning lens. I only have experience on an R5 but she wanted the most on an R7 for reach and quality + had been considering the combo she ended up buying. I genuinely believe she made the right choice.

The 200-800 is no doubt great but given the option of it or, as I have put above, the 100-500 and 1,4x is my choice !

If you want the 200-800 in the UK atm try HDEW in Wallington. They did have limited stock available. I have bought a lot from them and they guarantee themselves as the items as 'grey' but they have been in business many many years. *No I don't work for them but have been a happy customer since getting my first 5D II from them.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[koenkooi]

[...]Looking to get the RF200-800 when i can (no stock anywhere). However i had a thought, perhaps to get an R7 and use my RF100-500. This options would certainly be cheaper, and with the cropped sensor i would get the 800mm but wondered if anyone had experience of this or thoughts. Currently using the R6 MKii, so R7 would be second body.[...]

I'm using an R8 (same AF and sensor as your R6II) and an R7 and for the things I shoot, which is mostly opportunistic wildlife till we get more dragonflies, the AF on the R7 is a noticeable step back from the R8. It struggles with hugely out-of-focus subjects and detects the head/eyes a lot later.

The extra 'reach' I get compared to the R8 makes up for it, but I'll always consider using the R8 first, that generates much less friction for my shooting.

The R7 is a great camera, but it loses a bit of its lustre if you have used a camera with a faster sensor, like the R3, R5, R6II or R8.

 

[Shotbycurtin]

I’ve the 100-500 and 1.4 combo. The image quality is fine for me. The biggest downside for me is the extender physically stops the full range of the lens. With it attached you can only zoom down to 300mm on the lens. This effectively makes the Lens a 420-700mm.

 

[SurreyAlan]

I had a 100-500 and convinced a lady with an R7 to buy one with a 1.4x converter from our dealers as opposed to wait for a 200-800 as I felt it was to me a better option for her ... she also wouldn't have realistically been able to get the 200-800 for when she needed anywhere as was off to Africa a week after I spoke to her !

Due to a happy coincidence of offers found myself able to save £1000 on the official price of the 100-500 so picked one up from a dealer this morning. I have the 200-800 and in good light it can return excellent pictures but I wanted something a little more portable. This afternoon in murky conditions I tried the 100-500 out on my R7, the autofocus and eye tracking were much improved compared with the 200-800 and RF100-400 I also own. Remembering the light was poor, a crop of the 100-500 gave superior results to the 200-800. Adding the 1.4x to the 100-500 gave results very similar to the 200-800, cropping was much the better answer. This might change in really good light but I suspect the focusing and hopefully tracking are always going to be superior on the 100-500. Based on my limited experience I'd say it was good advice.

 

[Archibald]

Due to a happy coincidence of offers found myself able to save £1000 on the official price of the 100-500 so picked one up from a dealer this morning. I have the 200-800 and in good light it can return excellent pictures but I wanted something a little more portable. This afternoon in murky conditions I tried the 100-500 out on my R7, the autofocus and eye tracking were much improved compared with the 200-800 and RF100-400 I also own. Remembering the light was poor, a crop of the 100-500 gave superior results to the 200-800. Adding the 1.4x to the 100-500 gave results very similar to the 200-800, cropping was much the better answer. This might change in really good light but I suspect the focusing and hopefully tracking are always going to be superior on the 100-500. Based on my limited experience I'd say it was good advice.

Thanks for that report, Alan! You are quite the collector of long lenses. If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that all one needs is the 100-500 L, and to crop instead of using a teleconverter.

I found the 100-500 cropped to be significantly better than the 800mm f/11. Then I sold the 800.

 

[SurreyAlan]

Thanks for that report, Alan! You are quite the collector of long lenses. If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that all one needs is the 100-500 L, and to crop instead of using a teleconverter.

I found the 100-500 cropped to be significantly better than the 800mm f/11. Then I sold the 800.

I wouldn't reach a firm conclusion on just a few photos on a very miserable afternoon but I've just had another go in better and brighter weather, lettering on the scaffold pole again. Both were at 1/512 at f9.3 the 100-500 was iso 160 the 200-800 pushed up to 200. Viewing side by side in Faststone the 500 cropped is much clearer than the 800, the lettering plainly being stamped whereas on the 800 there's not that sense. However, recalling all the Phil Thack YT videos where he reckons the 800 gives better results stopped down I took some further pictures with the 800 this time at 1/332 f12.88 and ISO 160. This time the 800 had the edge the more so as you cropped in further. The 500 was hand held, the 800 on a monopod. The 500 is a lot more manageable and the focus is way better. My really good 200-800 photos have all been taken in bright sunlight whereas I suspect the 100-500 will perform better in duller conditions. I think I'll be using the 200-800 on sunny days, when I'm in a hide with a solid base to rest on whereas the 100-500 will be for walking around and murky days.

 

[Only RF]

also does anyone have experience of using the 1.4 extender on the R7 Rf100-500 set up?

I do. I have shot quite a bit with it. BIF is pretty challenging but my keeper rate goes way down. A full zoom and the math you are looking at 1120mm.

I made a decision this year to stop using the 1.4 TC with that combo and I get 800mm. I will use it on my R6II which puts it at 700mm. It works very well with a FF.