p.2 #3 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Methodical wrote:
Both
I think you're onto something. It's like when people ask questions like 70-200 vs 100-400. They're different lenses for different purposes with a good amount of overlap.
p.2 #4 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I go to South America all the time, never check a bag either. I only shoot birds. I would never even consider the 100-500 and definitely not the 200-800. You will be shooting 90% + under the trees. Even at F/4 you will be pushing it. But, you know that it sounds like.
Canon doesn't make any decent RF travel lenses.. Look at older used f/4 EF gear.. Very sharp and cheap.
p.2 #5 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
gkinard1952 wrote:
I go to South America all the time, never check a bag either. I only shoot birds. I would never even consider the 100-500 and definitely not the 200-800. You will be shooting 90% + under the trees. Even at F/4 you will be pushing it. But, you know that it sounds like.
Canon doesn't make any decent RF travel lenses.. Look at older used f/4 EF gear.. Very sharp and cheap.
Yeah, a used 400DOII and some EF TCs when needed would blow either of these lenses out of the water.
p.2 #7 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
gkinard1952 wrote:
I go to South America all the time, never check a bag either. I only shoot birds. I would never even consider the 100-500 and definitely not the 200-800. You will be shooting 90% + under the trees. Even at F/4 you will be pushing it. But, you know that it sounds like.
Canon doesn't make any decent RF travel lenses.. Look at older used f/4 EF gear.. Very sharp and cheap.
He stated that he will be shooting lizards, macro like images and things like that and he also made it clear that he's not that interested in birds, so f stop is really not a big deal in his case because these animals do not move fast like birds.
p.2 #8 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
arbitrage wrote:
Yeah, a used 400DOII and some EF TCs when needed would blow either of these lenses out of the water.
Might as well just buy two
And, a RF 400 2.8 and even the EF 300 2.8 with both the 1.4 and 2x would blow both of those lenses waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the water. This could go on and on. What you end of having to do is buy multiple lenses for different scenarios.
I have both because I don't want to use TCs with either lens and I get great images with the 100-500 and 200-800 (see the images Jan gets with them). I know the limitations of each lens, which is not a whole lot for me, but I push their boundaries because I don't worry about high ISO (cleans up nicely these days) and want to get the shot. I shot with the 300 f4 and 400 5.6 with the 1.4 TC for years before I was able to step up to f4 big glass and the 400 had no IS.
p.2 #9 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
sphaero126 wrote:
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....Show more →
If you want to do pseudo macro shots then the 100-500 is the better choice because the 200-800 minimum focusing distance at 800mm is 31.5" to 11' vs 2.95' to 3.94' for the 100-500. You could always employ the old Keno extension tubes to get closer.
Also, you can make the R5 a 1.6 crop camera by the press of a customized button (mine is the depth of field button). The 500mm will now be 700mm but you will lose some MPs. This could be good for those lizards in a tree shot. Remember these animals don't move fast like birds, so f stop is not your concern and the 100-500 produces sharper images.
p.2 #10 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
Methodical wrote:
...
If you want to do pseudo macro shots then the 100-500 is the better choice because the 200-800 minimum focusing distance at 800mm is 11' vs 3.94' for the 100-500. You could always employ the old Keno extension tubes to get closer.
....
Maximum Magnification 200-800 is 0.25x (= 2.62 ft. at 200 mm),
Maximum Magnification 100-500 is 0.33x (= 3.94 ft. at 500 mm),
p.2 #12 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
I'm not sure how well the 100-400 II works on the adapter at close distances. Is the focus shift in native EF use no longer an issue on RF bodies, i.e., do the EF lenses stop down during focus?
p.2 #13 · Just got new R5- Canon 100-500 or 200-800?
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not sure how well the 100-400 II works on the adapter at close distances. Is the focus shift in native EF use no longer an issue on RF bodies, i.e., do the EF lenses stop down during focus?
EBH
Yes, it focuses wide open. No, I've never experienced focus shift on any DSLR or mirrorless I've used it on.
