I use an R5 with the 100-500 lens. I was thinking about the 200-800 lens to use as it looks easier to handhold then the 600/F4 prime lens. What is the opinion of photographers that have used both and would you buy the 200-800 today knowing from your experience in the field. Thank you
bcutrupi wrote:
I use an R5 with the 100-500 lens. I was thinking about the 200-800 lens to use as it looks easier to handhold then the 600/F4 prime lens. What is the opinion of photographers that have used both and would you buy the 200-800 today knowing from your experience in the field. Thank you
The zoom is certainly easier to hand-hold than the 600mm f4, and of course it's significantly cheaper. However, it's very clumsy to handle, not really weather-sealed, and lacks the high-end coatings most of Canon's RF lenses have, so it's less contrasty and more prone to flare.
I've bought it twice, and quickly sold it again both times as I really did not like using it, but it's a good option if you're on a budget.
bcutrupi wrote:
I use an R5 with the 100-500 lens. I was thinking about the 200-800 lens to use as it looks easier to handhold then the 600/F4 prime lens. What is the opinion of photographers that have used both and would you buy the 200-800 today knowing from your experience in the field. Thank you
I have both, and use both.
howard wrote:
These are totally different lenses. If you have the 100-500, the 200-800 really does not make sense.
Howard
I have both 100-500 and 200-800, (but no 600 f/4). Despite the 100-500 being slightly better optically, the 200-800 stays glued to my R5mk2. More pixels per duck is more important to me than that slight optical superiority. Furthermore at 600 to about 750 the 200-800 is very very close optically. If you avoid the few weaknesses mentioned in previous posts.
Imagemaster wrote:
I would never buy the 200-800 when I can just slap a 1.4x TC on my 100-500 and still get good AF and good images.
I agree that for someone with the 100-500 this makes more general sense, though the 100-500 with TC is a lot clumsier to handle in the field since you can only zoom out to 300 and can’t store the lens closed. Makes it a 420-700 that’s f/10 at the long end.
I think if someone is going to be using the longer end more often the 200-800 makes more sense.
I think vs the 600/4, it’s just a totally non comparable lens.
For OP, I haven’t owned it very long but I really like the 200-800.
Yes. The 1120mm you get with the 1.4x on 200-800 is surprisingly good if the atmospherics allow it, without too severe effects of diffraction. Even as a 400-1600 with the 2x it works, but that f/18 at 1600mm is clearly into diffraction range. However, it is 1600mm in a very managable package for some extreme angles. Sometimes its all about the content, not the ultimate quality.
Yes, I would pay 3x for a 100-500 quality 200-800L! Canon, you listen!
I have never tried out a 200-800 but own the 100-500 and a 600/4 II. They compliment each other nicely and the 100-500 takes the 1.4x extender well when there is good light. I would worry about the overlap between the 100-500 with extender and the 200-800. I think you would gain more with the prime; sharper, much better bokeh, better in low light, etc.
Not an issue for me, because if I have the TC attached, I am shooting distant objects and have no need to zoom back below 420mm. And if I do, it is no big deal to remove the TC.
I have all three, 100-500, 200-800, and 600 f4. For me they just work for different situations, that can be a pain which lens to take on a given day. Between the two zooms the 100-500 is the better lens optically, lighter easier tracking birds in flight, and better coatings. The 200-800 is a great lens for the range close to far away so you don’t have to swap the TC on and off, and the lower quality coatings are effected by dust and dirt more compared to the 10-500. At my age the 600 f4 is a bit of a beast but for low light (owls, loons and hawks in low light ) it can’t be beat. Work in the gym lets me hand hold for short periods but with lots of waiting around it’s on a tripod. Also at 840 @560 wonderful, and in a pinch it
produces well at 1200 if the atmosphere allows..
