p.1 #1 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Hey all,
Looking for some advice.
All of my photography is only done on my 2-3 trips a year to South America. I just picked up a Canon R5, and thought it cant hurt to look into a longer lens since I always skip/ignore any bird we see, to just focus on reptiles with my 100mm macro. After my last trip to Colombia, and getting to try an 800mm lens, I have more of an appreciation for it.
I see lots of back and forth online about the new RF 100-500 and 200-800 and have no idea which would suit me better. All my luggage is carry on, I never check a bag, and in that sense the 200-800 scares me. On the other hand, the 100-500 seems smaller, lighter, and can be used with a teleconverter if I wanted that extra reach (over 300mm but would be no need to use a teleconverter at shorter distances for what I shoot), but I lose a little bit of reach.
On a full frame would the shots be that much worse with the 100-500? I dont need award winning bird shots, Im more concerned with my up close reptile shots, so this would just be a fun lens, and in the case of a future trip this year, photographing a lizard up in the trees if we come across it in the daytime.
Im new to any lens over 100mm so this is all a lot of information overload deciding. Thanks so much in advance for any advice.
p.1 #3 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I have the 100-500 for my R5 and it's magnificent! The R5 allows a ~1.5 crop and the 100-500 stands up to it. I don't need to really consider an APS-C extender body any more but I have the 1.4x if needed. The 100-500 fits my airline travel camera pack and the weight is still manageable on my old body. I've been doing digital travel wildlife photography for over 20 years now and the IQ from the R5 + 100-500 is a noticeable improvement over my 5D4 + 100-400 L. It's the right general purpose wildlife lens.
I haven't used the 200-800 and assume it's good. But it's big and heavy by comparison. For dedicated specialized use it's probably fine, but the 100-500 is the general choice in my opinion.
Edit: I'll add that I shoot hand held from boats or walking and don't sit behind a tripod waiting for something to happen. If this is not your style than the bigger lens might be more appropriate.
p.1 #4 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
artsupreme wrote:
100-500 and a TC.
+1
It's the size of a 70-200/2.8. The 200-800 is much larger.
Oct 05, 2025 at 07:30 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #5 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Ive done a lot of snake photography and the occasional gator I'd take either over the 100mm macro for that.
The 100-500 gets a little closer at 1:3 but still 1:4 on the 200-800, haven't used so can't comment on mfd performance. I've used old 200-500 mf on m4/3 for up to 1000mm ff equivalent so neither is too long, really
p.1 #6 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
If you were into birds I would say 200-800 but as this is not the case I would go with the 100-500. The 100-500 is optically top notch, the 200-800 is not so, but 'good enough'.
Oct 05, 2025 at 09:10 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #7 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
rscheffler wrote:
+1
It's the size of a 70-200/2.8. The 200-800 is much larger.
100-500 is a 70-200/2.8 basically. Same front element, different focal length. Both would be considered ~70mm telescopes one f/7.1, one f/2.8
p.1 #8 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I use both zooms as well as the 800/11 with the R5. The main benefit with the 100-500 is the handiness, light, smooth with great optics. But for birds that 800mm is often just so much better than 500. And the optics is not at all that far behind. The 200-800 is a real handfull step up in weight and size though.
There is one thing, and I have no experience of it, Colombia, rainforest. If it´s anything like my spruce/birch taiga, it can be very dark even mid day. If that 800 you tried was one of the fast ones, f/5.6, the f/9 or worse of the 200-800 may just not work too well despite very good IS. I have hunted passerines in dark woods with the 800/11, and I´m not convinced a faster and 15x more expensive one would have been _that_ much better. Only experience will tell. I´d go with the 100-500.
p.1 #9 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
The main reasons for the 200 - 800 are that it's more budget friendly, and that it has more room at the long end. Neither of those two reasons seem like they are a priority, so I don't have any reason why I would suggest the 200 - 800. The 100 - 500 is a better all around lens especially if you care about the wide end.
At 200mm, the 100 - 500 is 2/3 of a stop brighter, and can be a full stop brighter at 150mm.
Here are focal length ranges reported by the RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens in 1/3 stop apertures.
So even though the 200 - 800 is a bigger lens, the 100 - 500mm is actually brighter at the wider end. It's not until you need to add a teleconverter that the 200 - 800 pulls ahead. If you were TC on the 100 - 500 most of the time then there would be reason to debate, but since you will rarely do so no need to worry about a rare use case.
p.1 #10 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I have filmed and photographed wildlife for the last 3 years several times a week year round with the R5 and the RF 100-500. If you like to walk around and you value portability and ease of storage and don't shoot often past 500mm this combo is amazing! It's super fast with 2 USM motors and very accurate when it comes to auto-focus. This lens is razor sharp at every aperture and at very focal length.
I also shoot a lot of distant waterbirds so I added the RF 200-800 1.5 years ago. It's much heavier and more awkward, but I use it almost exclusively on a heavy tripod so it's no problem. If I had to choose only one lens I would go with the RF 100-500 plus a 1.4 extender without hesitation.
p.1 #11 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Ferrophot wrote:
If you were into birds I would say 200-800 but as this is not the case I would go with the 100-500. The 100-500 is optically top notch, the 200-800 is not so, but 'good enough'.
I'm currently renting a 200-800 and agree. For birds, particularly small, perched ones, there's never enough reach. The 200-800 has been really nice for those. Sharpness is very good, and AF is about on par with my EF 100-400 II. The 100-400 is very sharp and holds up better to cropping but needs more cropping compared to the 200-800. Of course the 100-500 is even sharper with even better AF which helps offset the loss of 300mm against the 200-800. I haven't found the weight of the 200-800 to be too bad but it makes my 100-400 look so tiny.
p.1 #12 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I echo most of the comments and good advice already posted here. I own the R5, 100-500 lens, and 200-800 lens... as well as a R7 body. I mainly photograph birds and other wildlife, and often in forests.
I think you would likely be best served with the 100-500 lens given your interests and your trips to South America. I've used all the above gear in the last few years in rainforests in Costa Rica and Malaysian Borneo, and agree with others that the faster apertures of the 100-500 are very useful. For birds perched out in the open with decent light, the 200-800 works pretty well with the R5, but for general use and trying to photograph in darker forest conditions, the 100-500 is superior, focuses more accurately, and is more capable of capturing sharp images.
I would also agree that the 100-500 (or 200-800) are really nice options for occasional macro use as well... I've gotten very nice closeup images of lizards, frogs, etc.
p.1 #14 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I have a somewhat different view. For birds under the canopy I have the 100-500 and an EF 500/4 or RF 600/4, often with various 1.4x TCs.
For macro herps and such I use an old Sigma 150 macro. I've been doing macros well over 40 years and used a lot of different ones. Today I'd get a ~100mm and also one of the discontinued longer macro lenses like 180 or 200mm that given more working distance for the skittish or toxic critters. The 100-500 will do double duty at longer distances for some larger venomous snakes, caimans, etc.
The 100-500 is such a versatile lens that regardless of whatever other RF lenses you have it's one that has some use outdoors. If you have a whole bag of lenses a fast 70-200 has it's place as do the big teles.
p.1 #15 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I own the 200-800 (RF100-400, and 200-400 and 600f4). The 200-400 is big and heavy and better iq than the 200-800. Thats why I bought the 200-800 for travel, and ease of use. When I am backpacking I would take the 100-400.
The 200-800 and the 100-500w1.4x are very close in iq.
The 100-500 is better at 100-500. Faster and slightly better iq (eg f7 vs f8 at 500).
I rarely shoot wildlife in the 100-200 range. I tend to be more towards the 800mm end.I dislike using the 1.4x. Taking1.4x off an on in the field is dangerous and time consuming. Worrying that if I don't take it off, I am sacrificing a small amount of iq. So I would be inclined to just leave the 1.4x on - meaning, for me, the 200-800 is just as good and more versatile.
So then for me, it comes down to weight/size, not iq. The 200-800 is small enough and light enough for me. I don't want another lens (100-500) to bring along for close in.
Mt advice is that if you mainly shoot >500 and are not bothered by extra weight/size, get the 200-800.
p.1 #16 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
100-500 sounds like the better option for you. Especially with your close up reptile shots.
200-800 has 0.25x MM
100-500 has 0.33x and with a 1.4TC would go up to 0.46x.
100-500 will be so much easier to pack in carry-on and less conspicuous walking around compared to the much larger 200-800.
p.1 #17 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Thank you guys! It looks like the 100-500 is the winner. I like the fact you can add a teleconverter, however I dont know if id get the $600 use out of it as we mainly photograph or look at birds when killing time finding reptiles, but some of them are absolutely stunning in that region. The size was the biggest factor, as hiking with the backpack, I would like it as light as possible. This seems like a lens I can keep on during the day, and at night leave it in the room and switch to the 100mm macro.
I know wildlife is different in my terms, as we usually get up close and personal, even with the 15mm wide angle macro for snakes and lizards. I think the 100-500 will be a good compromise of size and distance for the birds.
p.1 #19 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Scott mentioned the RF 100-400 and it is worth mentioning. It is about the same size and weight as the 100 macro and can focus very close, 2.9' or 1:2.4 at the long end. Its major downside is that it is essentially an f8 lens which could be problematic in dense forests. I mostly use it on the R7 for dayhikes or at home for hummers, lizards, bunnies, etc. I live in SoCal so daylight is usually not an issue, but finding colorful birds or frogs is.
Oct 07, 2025 at 11:14 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #20 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
sphaero126 wrote:
Thank you guys! It looks like the 100-500 is the winner. I like the fact you can add a teleconverter, however I dont know if id get the $600 use out of it as we mainly photograph or look at birds when killing time finding reptiles, but some of them are absolutely stunning in that region. The size was the biggest factor, as hiking with the backpack, I would like it as light as possible. This seems like a lens I can keep on during the day, and at night leave it in the room and switch to the 100mm macro.
I know wildlife is different in my terms, as we usually get up close and personal, even with the 15mm wide angle macro for snakes and lizards. I think the 100-500 will be a good compromise of size and distance for the birds....Show more →
Ive used tele zooms a lot, over the years, especially if you dont need to get really close like a macro lens does. You just can't buy a 500mm macro. You just get more distance and more photos since stuff doesn't run off as much
100mm is awfully short for poisonous snakes, I've done it but even 400mm ff equivalent is a bit on the short side for that. Non poisonous not so much of a problem if you can get close enough.
Most reptiles don't need to get close like a macro lens though, unless youre getting head shots or something.
