The image quality is very good on the 800 f11. I like mine. I just got the 100-500 with a 1.4X a couple months ago. I'm using it more and one of the main benefits is the closer focus on the 100-500. IQ on the 100-500 is on another level.
Jman13 wrote:
I'm sure that is the case. However, the 100-500 + 2x TC is $3,300. The 100-400 and 800mm are $1550. I don't use long lenses enough to come close to justifying double the price. I'm just trying to get a feel for the IQ of the 800mm, using the 100-400 as an example (say, at 400mm). Not on the same subject at the same distance, but in general image quality.
Don't get me wrong, I love the RF 100-400mm, the IQ of the 800mm f/11 is good enough for me, and I highly recommend them. But, you mentioned getting the 300/2.8, and I thought it worth mentioning that if you were going down that route then the 100-500mm should be considered.
cpe1991 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I love the RF 100-400mm, the IQ of the 800mm f/11 is good enough for me, and I highly recommend them. But, you mentioned getting the 300/2.8, and I thought it worth mentioning that if you were going down that route then the 100-500mm should be considered.
Where did I mention getting the 300/2.8? I think you might be mixing me up with TakesRandomPics....I was asking them what the quality of the 800mm was since they had both the 100-400 and the 800mm.
The 300/2.8 is FAR too rich for my blood given that most of my work is architecture and landscapes, and 95% of my shooting is taken at 200mm and shorter.
Got out to shoot with this lens again today. I just can't get over what a joy it is to use in the field. So light and unobtrusive, and the AF is excellent. Good sharpness too, even moreso given the price.
cpe1991 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I love the RF 100-400mm, the IQ of the 800mm f/11 is good enough for me, and I highly recommend them. But, you mentioned getting the 300/2.8, and I thought it worth mentioning that if you were going down that route then the 100-500mm should be considered.
I have considered the 100-500 but the reason to get the 300/2.8 is for those overcast low light days that we get here. Even with the high ISO performance of the R5 there are enough times where I simply cannot get the shutter speed over 1/200 even with ISO at H. I haven't tested it fully but I suspect I can get away with 1.6x crop mode photos in those scenarios with a fast lens like the 300/2.8 or if I actually stick to my fitness plan the 400/2.8
Mine just arrived today. I can't get over how light it is. It'll be a great travel lens.
Yeah, it's just an awesome little lens. Optically, it's pretty good. Not as good as something like my 70-200/2.8L, of course, but still quite good, and you're right about the size. It's just so compact and lightweight. Don't even have to think about popping it in the bag.
Honestly, some of my favorite lenses for the RF system are the more inexpensive ones. They are really versatile, have good optics and are portable.
Just received mine from B&H. Fired a few test shots and it is very sharp, even at 400mm. I have to say it far exceeds my expectations!
I have never thought this could be possible even a couple of years ago: I can now carry a R5, a 14-35/4, a 70-200/4, a 50/1.8 and a 100-400 all in a small sling bag like the Peak Design 10L. And everything together (2772g) barely weights more than a 5DSR with a single EF 70-200/2.8 attached (2325g). I think this is crazy!
This heron appears to have a lot more white on the breast and bib feathers. Not sure if that would be semi-leucistic, or just that I have not seen one in bright sunlight with blue sky behind for a while.
Not a bad result for the 'cheapo' $650 Canon RF 100-400mm with a 2X TC, handheld and cropped.
Where did I mention getting the 300/2.8? I think you might be mixing me up with TakesRandomPics....I was asking them what the quality of the 800mm was since they had both the 100-400 and the 800mm. 
