Hi! Looking for a little bit of wisdom and experience regarding image quality for a specific scenario where I'm trying to decide between 2 classes of lenses for an upcoming event.
In 2026 I'll be at an event where I'll have the opportunity to capture some human-avoidant wildlife outdoors at all times of day and variable morning through early evening lighting. I expect them to be at a distance for most of our observation time, so I do want some range.
I was initially considering renting an RF600 f4 L or RF800 f5.6 L and combining them with my RF 1.4x extender, but the fixed focal length has me considering the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L or the RF200-800mm F6.3-9 (which isn't a prime apparently?).
So of the two classes of lenses - the fixed 600 f4 / 800 f5.6 lenses in group 1, and the adjustable 100-500 f4.5-7.1/200-800 f6.3-9 in group 2, would you expect *significant* image quality differences - enough to give up the flexibility of the zooms in group 2?
I'll be using whichever lens I choose with an R3 body.
My suspicion is that the group 1 lenses will be better but just marginally. The image quality comparison sites I've used in the past are no longer around (e.g., slrgear) so I'm not sure if there's some sample sets I can look at.
I've used the 100-500 as the shorter lens in combination with the RF 600/4, often the latter with a 1.4x TC. Sometimes I use the EF 500/4 IS II with the 1.4x III as the second lens with the 100-500, obviously on two bodies to be ready for action. The 100-500 is just passable with the RF 1.4x under certain circumstances. The 200-800 is a lesser IQ lens, though not as obvious with the relatively low-res sensors like in the R3. You'd have to be nearly blind not see the difference of the 200-800 at 800mm compared to the RF 600+1.4x at 45MP.
The R3 is a poor choice for reach, so you will be better off with more MP like R5/R5 II and perhaps can get by with somewhat shorter lenses. Ultimately your output should drive the decisions on what gear is adequate.
The RF 600mm f4L is noticeably better than the 100-500L, but it's not a huge difference. The EF 200-800 is a different story - a lot of detrimental compromises were made to keep the cost down. It's okay if you're on a tight budget, but don't expect it to compare to the L-series primes.
The R3 is a nice camera, and the low-light performance is better than the R5 II.
Good feedback on the 200-800, thank you both. I saw it wasn't a prime and assumed lower PQ so good to hear that confirmed.
I'm renting whichever lens I decide to use so budget isn't really an issue. It sounds like the 100-500 or 600/4 would be good choices, and I'm not really that keen on the 800/5.6 but wanted to include it for comparison.
This will be the first time I've been to this event so I might hedge my assumptions a bit and go with the 100-500 to give me some flexibility. I don't really want to lug two lenses around I'll also contact the folks that run the event and see if they can help with the expectations a bit.
600mm f4 is the best lens for distant shots, hands down. Not only it is sharper than the others, but keep in mind that even minor flaws will exibit at distance so stop looking further.
scottcot wrote:
Good feedback on the 200-800, thank you both. I saw it wasn't a prime and assumed lower PQ so good to hear that confirmed.
I'm renting whichever lens I decide to use so budget isn't really an issue. It sounds like the 100-500 or 600/4 would be good choices, and I'm not really that keen on the 800/5.6 but wanted to include it for comparison.
This will be the first time I've been to this event so I might hedge my assumptions a bit and go with the 100-500 to give me some flexibility. I don't really want to lug two lenses around I'll also contact the folks that run the event and see if they can help with the expectations a bit....Show more →
Seeing you are going to rent, you may want to consider the 100-300mm f2.8 with extenders. It works really well with both extenders. Giving you 100-600mm f2.8 / f4 / f5.6. I have tons of shots on my Flickr with it. I have owned the 800, 600, 400mm and 100-500 and the 100-300 and the 400mm is what I have landed on with extenders. Both outstanding pieces of glass.
All too often we use hyperbole words when we describe the differences between lenses, the 200-800 often getting the poop, mainly of two reasons, perhaps three: f/9 is not f/4 when shooting in low light and the bokeh is not as blurred/destroyed (depending on taste) and it is not quite topnotch at 800. But already at around 700 and definitely at 600 f/8 any difference to a 600/4 other than bokeh is laughably small.
Furthermore, how do you frame some human-avoidant wildlife outdoors that get too close for a 600mm? They do that when you least expect it. Without knowing the distances or light, Iīd take a 400/2.8 and the extenders in addition to the 200-800.
I tested the 200-800 with extenders yesterday. Well, if you need plenty mm it can be surprisingly good. If the air permits it.
But all those differences are pointless if there is differences in the air temperature, perhaps moisture as well. You can bring any bokeh monster multiple multidollar lenses and get it all totally blurred out by bad atmospherics. And remember, that bad air may be only within the lens hood. But usually its just as it is: there is no way to get sharp images. Period. So donīt be too disappointed if/when money donīt fix all.
At long distance is when even the sharpest lens with a TC will fail compared to a similar native lens. Every little defect of a lens/TC combination will be amplified and it''s just better to crop than to add a TC. At close distances you can get away with it.
Uarctos wrote:
At long distance is when even the sharpest lens with a TC will fail compared to a similar native lens. Every little defect of a lens/TC combination will be amplified and it''s just better to crop than to add a TC. At close distances you can get away with it.
Never mind with my suggestion then, all images with TC's suck then. Go with the ancient way of thinking and only use primes, do not use zooms and do not use TC's. They will all fail. I know personally all my images with TC's have been terrible, Ha Ha. I do not why I even bother posting anymore.
Do what you will OP but from my experience TC's are simply amazing on f2.8 lenses and modern cameras. That is at close and far. If conditions do not allow TC's then most likely your prime will not be great either. Best of luck in your decision and enjoy your outing.
Uarctos wrote:
At long distance is when even the sharpest lens with a TC will fail compared to a similar native lens. Every little defect of a lens/TC combination will be amplified and it''s just better to crop than to add a TC. At close distances you can get away with it.
That is simply not correct at this moment in time. A new generation of far higher resolution sensors may make those yesteryears small defects amplified by TCs visible again though.
Long distance has nothing to do with a general failure of TCs. Any lens, prime or zoom has its weak spots somewhere between MFD and infinity, the big whites are no exception. Whether those weak spots are visible is up to the sensor to solve. Yes, zooms are generally worse than primes. But it is all down to the resolution capability of the sensors. At present the RF TCs, yes, the 2x too, do surprisingly well. So does the 200-800, especially on lower resolution, as my R8. I prefer the high resolution R5īs for wildlife, so I only use them.
In addition to variations in performance due to distance, zooms have varying performance along their zoom range. The designer tries to minimize this to an acceptable level, the design goal. This includes a targeted prize point, size, weight, etc.
My few but growing number of tests show clear signs that when using a zoom at those FLs with best performance the TC does a very good job. The 200-800 600mm f/8 with the 2x as a 1200mm f/16 shows almost no other problems (extreme corners excluded) than the effect of diffraction.
The 600mm f4 is simply better than 100-500mm or 200-800mm. Better glass. It's still better at 600mm than the 100-300mm f2.8 with the 2xTC. The OP is asking for the best IQ for distant shots. It's just phisics.
Now, is one thing to shoot wolves at 500 meters away and another thing to shoot small birds at the same distance.
Ok. As a general purpose outfit, 100-500 plus 600 f4L. I've had a couple of 800's 5.6L and I've found the 600 more useful. There is a limit on magnification before atmospherics caused by distance blur the image and the 600 + 1.4x has met my needs Low light habituated moose, I've used FD 300 f2.8L in the old days but have not replaced it. Part of that is the difference in ISO's we work with. Faster lenses now have more to do with the rendring of the background than shutter speed although things like the 200-800, I wonder. Still like the 28-300 in africa where I can pick elephants and other animals up at a distance and follow them all the way in where I needed the 28mm coverage. Used a 500mm f4 L alot but have not replaced it relying on a zoom. The 500 worked well for animals and the 600 for birds. The 400 f2.8 L worked well on Midway with birds as they are habituated and it allowed you to blur the background. With multipliers you get 560 and 800 and I was able to do flight shots with that weight. Also compact for flight in. Used 400 DO lI lens for New Zealand again for weight. My main lens for animals now is the 200-400 f4L. A lot of the time an external 1.4x mounted so I get 280-560. Flip in the built in 1.4x and you get 400-800 f8. Wish canon would make a 150-600 5.6L like the old days. Went quarter life size and was great.
Something to consider is whether you will already be reach limited with, say, a 600mm lens. If your subjects will never come closer, then there's really no point considering any of the shorter zooms (though it might be risky assuming you'll never have need for a wider focal length range).
Having limited experience with the 600/4 and RF 800/5.6, don't write off the 800 unless you need f/4. The 800 is actually smaller than the 600 and focuses much closer. But the latter may be irrelevant if your subjects are always far away. And you can basically reproduce it with a 1.4x TC on the 600.
If your subjects will typically be far away, you may experience issues related to atmospheric distortion (such as heat waves) that result in image degradation, which will make image quality differences between best-of-the-best primes and not quite as good zooms, negligible.
A major benefit of the primes will be their light gathering ability, allowing you to extend the ability to work farther into marginal light conditions. But the tradeoff will be a much larger, heavier lens.
And who knows maybe by then Canon will have released the rumored 300-600/4-5.6.
The 100-500 and 200-800 are convenience zooms. The 100-500 is a tad sharper, but shorter. The 200-800 delivers quality images as well.
But with you saying, "...capture some human-avoidant wildlife outdoors at all times of day and variable morning through early evening lighting. I expect them to be at a distance for most of our observation time, so I do want some range."
You are going to want to consider the RF 600 f/4 (with and with out TC's), the RF 800 f/5.6 (with and out the 1.4x) and another lens to consider is the RF 400 2.8. I have as well owned all three of these as well as the 100-300 2.8 - I feel like this lens, the 100-300 2.8, will be too short for your needs. Early morning and evening light, the 400/600/800 primes are going to trump your other lenses, especially the 400 2.8 and 600 4.0 as they will allow more light in, which means lower ISO and less detail loss. The 800 5.6 is awesome, but the 600 and 400 are more versatile - they both can do 800ish 5.6 but shorter lengths with faster apertures. I would suggest the 600 4.0, but you also didn't specify where you are going or your "human-avoidant" wildlife as that may factor in as well...
And as has already been suggested, consider a higher pixel density camera. Similar to a longer lens, it will help get more pixels on the subject.
Other than build and ergonomics, IMO the R3 has very little advantage over the R5II. Both are stacked sensors with similar readout speed, 30 fps, very responsive AF but the R5II has the MP advantage, if you can leverage it. Also of potential value is the pre-capture feature. While it has been pooh-poohed here on this board, what you will be doing might benefit from it. For example, if these animals are very skittish and you may only get momentary glimpses of them, by the time you react you may have already missed the peak moment. But with pre-capture, you have limited ability to 'go back in time' and save that moment before you were able to react.
Dont let the pixel density on R3 bother you. RF600F4 on R3 is an absolute joy to use.
600 is the best among the 3. your choice becomes do you prefer the convenience/flexibility or absolute quality. while rf100-500 is better than 200-800 until 500mm, but if you need the reach to 800, you need the reach.
so unless you need the absolute light package for travel, I will skip the 100-500 and choose between 600f4 vs 200-800. While the zoom is a decent lens, it us no match for 600. especially the F4!
for a 600F4, the RF 600 is comparatively light weight lens.
I'll also contact the folks that run the event and see if they can help with the expectations a bit.