I rented the 800/11 recently, intending to take it to a local air show I've shot many times before. I've never shot a long prime or anything beyond 560mm. I own an R6 and EF 100-400 II with a 1.4x TC III.
The 800/11 is shockingly light. It isn't, but it feels half the weight of lens above, so it is very easy to use, even for someone unaccustomed to such a long focal length.
I did a few side by side shots against the 100-400 in the back yard, shooting utility poles and distance signs. Once I got used to 800mm, 400mm seemed incredibly short. But the cropped 400mm shots looked very similar in terms of sharpness and detail to the 800mm shots. Yes, it's probably not fair to compare a relatively cheap lens to an L lens, but that's how I'd personally be evaluating a potential purchase.
I took it to a wetlands to shoot some birds. For stationary or very slow moving birds in good light, this lens is very good. I almost always use servo focusing with tracking. The 800/11 managed to deliver in-focus shots, but the AF squares didn't inspire confidence. Instead of maintaining a square around the subject, it seemed to jump between that, multiple squares, and a big box around the entire focusing area. I tried tracking a few flying birds but didn't have much luck. It can take a while to rack the focus and by then the birds were long gone.
I practiced tracking some more distant planes and found a weird behavior. I acquired the plane in the viewfinder, engaged AF, physically tracked the plane, then hit the shutter. After the last shot in a burst, the plane would jump ahead in the viewfinder. It's like the EVF wasn't being updated during the burst. I use EFCS and H+ and no camera settings changed between lenses. I'm not sure what caused that.
I think this lens would be excellent for someone wanting to get into the long telephoto game for very little money, provided your subjects are slow moving. If you already have a high quality long telephoto lens, then there isn't a lot to be gained from the 800/11 except weight savings.