Canon R7 Rf200-800 or ef500 mk1

[Artee]

Hello to the collective.
What's people's opinions on the rf200-800 vs an ef500 f4 all versions.
Living in the North of England we don't tend to get many "good light" days, so I need a wide aperture for my photography.
I'm looking to replace my ef500 f4.5 as its now getting on a bit. Still a good lens but the lack of image stabilisation is not helping.
So.... rf lens or ef lens?

Thanks
Artee

 

[MrSparks999]

Have you considered the RF 100-500?

 

[Artee]

Have you considered the RF 100-500?

I have.
But it's the same problem, lack of wide aperture.

 

[Dcweather]

I have.
But it's the same problem, lack of wide aperture.

I think we all would like the answer to that - at least those in the dull old winters of the UK where AGW seems to be making for far less crisp sunny High Pressure systems! But in the end I guess it comes down to a decision and usually compromise of what weight you are prepared to have, what reach you want and how fast a lens you need. Of course the top answer to each one will lead you to the most expensive every time! So for me I left DSLRs for less weight and came to Canon because at the time it seemed to have the lightest lenses. Of course if you have the R7 you need less reach. I have the RF100-400mm and love the weight but am looking to upgrade to the RF100-500mm mainly for the better AF and slightly better IQ although the reach will help. I have sort of got used to the high ISO with the much improved AI noise removal software which is probably worth the two stops of light we are losing compared to the old days.

 

[Artee]

I think we all would like the answer to that - at least those in the dull old winters of the UK where AGW seems to be making for far less crisp sunny High Pressure systems! But in the end I guess it comes down to a decision and usually compromise of what weight you are prepared to have, what reach you want and how fast a lens you need. Of course the top answer to each one will lead you to the most expensive every time! So for me I left DSLRs for less weight and came to Canon because at the time it seemed to have the lightest lenses. Of course if you have the R7 you need less reach. I have the RF100-400mm and love the weight but am looking to upgrade to the RF100-500mm mainly for the better AF and slightly better IQ although the reach will help. I have sort of got used to the high ISO with the much improved AI noise removal software which is probably worth the two stops of light we are losing compared to the old days.

Many thanks for the feedback.
I'm trying to find a shop that I can try the 200-800 on my r7.
I'm not going to buy a lens without trying it first.
If it shoots OK in the shop then it should be fine outdoors.
Roger

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I got on a list for the 200-800mm early here in the US and am still without one, so I can't say for sure.

I shoot with an R7 and understand the low light situation. I also shoot with a 100-500mm and even at the long end (f7.1) it does fine in lower light situations with my R5, but will tend to hunt more with the R7. That said, I'm not sure the problem is the aperture as much as the camera as I've had the R7 grab a bluebird in the shadows of a tree right off the bat. Low light, low contrast outdoor shots are likely tough to simulate in a shop, depending on your subject. I think that the 100-500mm will serve you fine and may give you better stability with the R7. BTW, I find that lens takes almost twice as long to achieve IS with the R7 than the R5, likely a factor of the crop and processing power. At 800mm you may experience an even greater lag, so if that's an important factor you will want to check that aspect out.

 

[Artee]

I got on a list for the 200-800mm early here in the US and am still without one, so I can't say for sure.

I shoot with an R7 and understand the low light situation. I also shoot with a 100-500mm and even at the long end (f7.1) it does fine in lower light situations with my R5, but will tend to hunt more with the R7. That said, I'm not sure the problem is the aperture as much as the camera as I've had the R7 grab a bluebird in the shadows of a tree right off the bat. Low light, low contrast outdoor shots are likely tough to simulate in a shop, depending on your subject. I think that the 100-500mm will serve you fine and may give you better stability with the R7. BTW, I find that lens takes almost twice as long to achieve IS with the R7 than the R5, likely a factor of the crop and processing power. At 800mm you may experience an even greater lag, so if that's an important factor you will want to check that aspect out.

Many thanks for your input.
I'm beginning to think I bought the wrong camera.
But as I was already a canon user with good glass, I decided to stay with the brand.
I've never been satisfied with this camera's af performance especially in low light situations.
But we are where we are... I must make the best of it. (Unless I get a great deal on a Sony)

 

[MrSparks999]

Am not on any waiting list, so have resigned myself to not getting a 200-800 this year. I keep checking all UK stores for stock, but nothing. So will just keep using the 100-500 with a 1.4 converter when needed for that bit of extra reach. I have tried using the digital extender in my R6 MKii, but find the results a little soft.