biggles2002 wrote:
What´s your opinion about using R7 + RF100-500 + 1,4xTC ?
I guess this is directed to me? That combo can be great! Did you look thru the first few shots on my Flickr photostream? I have some on there with that combo. I like it, as long as I'm not going to have anything close. The 1.4 makes the smallest length on lens 300mm. So , FOV is 300X1.6X1.4 or 672mm. If that is OK, then it is good. If not, bare is probably better and then crop. One other advantage is the close focus of the 100-500 is way,way better than the 800mm. If something pops up 6 feet away, you can shoot it with the 100-500 but not with the 800mm. I have begun shooting video a lot, and the 100-500 is better for that. If interested in my videos, they are on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@dave63401/videos I don't think it tells which combo I used however.
matejphoto wrote:
What is better (sharpness, bokeh, IS)?
Canon 100-500mm + 1.4 extender
vs.
Canon 800mm f/11
I understand that the 100-500+extender cost a LOT more, but I assume many people who would be interested in the 800mm already have 100-500.
I always thought that once I grow up I would buy a supertelephoto (e.g. 600mm f/4) as a retirement gift for myself or something like that. But now that I have the 100-500mm I don't think I will ever need anything longer. Sure, sometimes more reach would be nice but even shooting at 500mm is tricky sometimes.
I am hoping for a high res body (80-100mpix) that would make the need for large lens obvious. ...Show more →
I own the 100-500, and one motivation t purchase it as an upgrade from the EF 100-400 was that I would no longer need an extender 1.4x to go beyond 400mm. Looking at getting further reach, the RF extender is $499 + tax, whereas the RF 800 has been priced new at $899, refurbished even less. I actually bought the 800 here on FM, including the lens hood, for $750, a no-brainer. The 100-500 is not so easy to use with extender as it limits the zoom range at the lower end to 300mm instead of 140mm, and makes the lens more cumbersome to store as it cannot retract completely. So long story short there is no contradiction in owning both instead of investing in the RF 1.4x, very complementary in most applications.
I picked up the 800/11 last year, and have been very pleased with it overall. Very solid lens that opens up supertelephoto photography on a budget, and I have been really happy with the sharpness, rendering and bokeh from it. Really punches above its weight, IMO. I am finding it even better on the R8 than on my R5 because the R8 (like the R6 II and presumably the R3), the AF area is significantly expanded from what it is on my R5.
I've been using and testing the RF 100-500, RF 100-500 with 1.4 and RF 800 f/11 extensively for the past two years. As far as IQ goes, there are no discernable differences between any of these three lens settings; the only difference is the ISO level. Lately, I've been heavily favoring the RF 800 due to its light weight.
Jman13 wrote:
I picked up the 800/11 last year, and have been very pleased with it overall. Very solid lens that opens up supertelephoto photography on a budget, and I have been really happy with the sharpness, rendering and bokeh from it. Really punches above its weight, IMO. I am finding it even better on the R8 than on my R5 because the R8 (like the R6 II and presumably the R3), the AF area is significantly expanded from what it is on my R5.
Before I got back into FF/crop-mix life was easy. R5 with 100-500 for opportunistic walks, 800/11 when I knew what was coming. But the croppers, first R10 all too soon swapped to R7, have caused some confusion when to choose gear of the day.
R7+800/11 is 1280mm FFeq. field of view. That is one narrow straw to look through in search of fast BIF. On steady ground with wide view, ok to a degree. But my preferred small boat, no, it simply does not work. The sea ice is finally breaking up and I had hundreds of seabirds swirling around me, no not good. And within the ice there is no waves.
So I tried R7+100-500 (160-800 FFeq), yes! 800 is just about max. With 160-799 available, it will be my goto combo for most of my boating.
However, there is a forgotten gem around, the 600/11 STM! I got such a good deal on one that resistance was futile. On crop it is 960mm and it is _very_ handy compared to the 800/11. The difference is substantial! This lens should have a thread of it´s own, but it would die instantly due to lack of users, probably with some stupid comment about inability to totally destroy, sorry, _blur_ the back ground from some f/4 nut as the last nail.
In a thread I started today about a reach problem, I was encouraged to reconsider the RF 800 f/11 so I have been looking at it further. One thing I noticed on some of the B&H reviews were complaints that the AF would sporadically stop working. I haven't been able to find any such references here on FM. Has anybody experienced this? BTW, I am using an R5, but I would think AF would be the same with the R6 too.
