More lens comparisons

[Dave Williams]

It's been mostly grey and miserable in my part of the world so my photography has been largely limited to hanging out of an upstairs window. I have a perch near my bird feeders and I spotted an opportunity for a very unscientific comparison of three lens and teleconverter opportunities, all taken with the R5 and trying to be as fair to each as possible. I'm sure you can imagine it was a bit of a rapid change between gear and everything was a bit hurried but I managed shots with the EF 500f4 naked plus 1.4 and 2.0x TC's, then the 100-500naked at 500mm plus 1.4 TC(700mm) and the 800mm f11. Sadly the bird flew before I could stick the 1.4 on the 800mm but that would have been a real test.
I decided to stick with the same ISO of 3200 where possible although I dropped to 1600 for the 500mm f4 plus 1.4TC. The f4 lens had a big advantage of higher shutter speed too although when the subject is near motionless it helps the other two lenses keep pace because shutter speed dropped to as low as 1/80th. All the shots are full frame, they have all had a tiny tweak on brightness, and all have had the same, tiny amount of sharpening.
In no particular order, the six different combinations! I didn't notice that much difference in the small detail, but the f4 lens produces a creamier bokeh and the light allows for more choice on ISO and S/S. It also puts a much bigger hole in your bank balance!

• Canon EOS R5
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• EF500mm f/4L IS II USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• EF500mm f/4L IS II USM +2x III
• 1,000.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• EF500mm f/4L IS II USM +1.4x III
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[KEN_A]

Dave, thanks for this comparison. I have the RF800, EF100-400 Mk II and the EF1.4 III extender. These images above all look very close to me. Nice photos.

 

[Dave Williams]

I agree Ken, the images don't look that different to me either, even when I enlarge to 100%.
I have had in the past a whole range of expensive lenses , and the value of my equipment has been well beyond five figures and all for a hobby and not for profit. I'm getting older and wiser which tells me not to chase the latest and greatest, especially if it weighs a lot!
I won't sell the 500mm f4, it's a beautiful lens and the best of the three but it's now not my first choice for use purely because of the weight factor. The 800mm f11 is remarkable for the money but has the limited AF points and can give too much reach on some ocasions depending on subject size and distance, the portability though is fantastic. The 100-500 is so flexible, lets you use all the AF points but is just a tad short for birds at 500mm so a 420-700 zoom is pretty well perfect. In your position Ken, I'm not sure if I'd be in a hurry to sell the 100-400. If I'd have known how good the 800 was I might have not bought the 100-500 first and kept mine and had the 800mm for when needed. That said though for moving subjects the 800 isn't the best for trying to keep in the frame and even with the 1.4TC on the 100-400 it's still a tad short but that depends on subject matter too and if you have the 800mm to hand the problem might be solved.
It's a tough call but if I could have just one of them the 100-500, OK plus the 1.4TC , would be the one to keep.

 

[Dave Williams]

I decided to push the 800mm to the limit today...I stuck the RF 1.4TC on the end to give me a whopping 1120mm plus the cropping power of the R5. In poor light it was a non starter really because at f16 it's a minimum ISO6400 and a very low shutter speed.
In sunlight, and it was brighter than the shot suggests, in my opinion it's not acceptable really. A 50% crop and even with some extra sharpening it's still a bit soft.Better than nothing though!

• Canon EOS R5
• RF800mm F11 IS STM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 1,120.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[RedCobra]

I decided to push the 800mm to the limit today...I stuck the RF 1.4TC on the end to give me a whopping 1120mm plus the cropping power of the R5. In poor light it was a non starter really because at f16 it's a minimum ISO6400 and a very low shutter speed.
In sunlight, and it was brighter than the shot suggests, in my opinion it's not acceptable really. A 50% crop and even with some extra sharpening it's still a bit soft.Better than nothing though!
View attachment 7638

Would be interesting to compare this with the 100-500 and the 2x extender.

 

[KEN_A]

I agree Ken, the images don't look that different to me either, even when I enlarge to 100%.
I have had in the past a whole range of expensive lenses , and the value of my equipment has been well beyond five figures and all for a hobby and not for profit. I'm getting older and wiser which tells me not to chase the latest and greatest, especially if it weighs a lot!
I won't sell the 500mm f4, it's a beautiful lens and the best of the three but it's now not my first choice for use purely because of the weight factor. The 800mm f11 is remarkable for the money but has the limited AF points and can give too much reach on some ocasions depending on subject size and distance, the portability though is fantastic. The 100-500 is so flexible, lets you use all the AF points but is just a tad short for birds at 500mm so a 420-700 zoom is pretty well perfect. In your position Ken, I'm not sure if I'd be in a hurry to sell the 100-400. If I'd have known how good the 800 was I might have not bought the 100-500 first and kept mine and had the 800mm for when needed. That said though for moving subjects the 800 isn't the best for trying to keep in the frame and even with the 1.4TC on the 100-400 it's still a tad short but that depends on subject matter too and if you have the 800mm to hand the problem might be solved.
It's a tough call but if I could have just one of them the 100-500, OK plus the 1.4TC , would be the one to keep.

Dave, I did think about selling the 100-400 but there is such a delta in cost. I'm very happy to stick with this lens.

I agree Ken, the images don't look that different to me either, even when I enlarge to 100%.
I have had in the past a whole range of expensive lenses , and the value of my equipment has been well beyond five figures and all for a hobby and not for profit. I'm getting older and wiser which tells me not to chase the latest and greatest, especially if it weighs a lot!
I won't sell the 500mm f4, it's a beautiful lens and the best of the three but it's now not my first choice for use purely because of the weight factor. The 800mm f11 is remarkable for the money but has the limited AF points and can give too much reach on some ocasions depending on subject size and distance, the portability though is fantastic. The 100-500 is so flexible, lets you use all the AF points but is just a tad short for birds at 500mm so a 420-700 zoom is pretty well perfect. In your position Ken, I'm not sure if I'd be in a hurry to sell the 100-400. If I'd have known how good the 800 was I might have not bought the 100-500 first and kept mine and had the 800mm for when needed. That said though for moving subjects the 800 isn't the best for trying to keep in the frame and even with the 1.4TC on the 100-400 it's still a tad short but that depends on subject matter too and if you have the 800mm to hand the problem might be solved.
It's a tough call but if I could have just one of them the 100-500, OK plus the 1.4TC , would be the one to keep.

Dave, I did consider selling the EF 100-400 but there is a very large delta in cost involved for the RF 100-500. Reviews seem to say there is not a huge difference in image results. I got the 800 purely for the reach knowing its limitations but have been surprised by results from it. Also, it's so much lighter than the EF lens for general carrying around. The only other RF lens I have invested in is the 100mm Macro. For the rest I am sticking to the several EF L lenses purchased over the years and using the adapters I have obtained.