dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have a Canon RF 100-500 telephoto lens. My question regards which is better? I could buy a 1.4X or 2X RF extender. Or, I could buy the Canon RF 800mm f:11.

Can any members tell me which is the better option? I am interested is sharp photos with minimal distortion for bird and wildlife photography.

My Canon camera is an EOS R5. By the way, I just downloaded and installed the firmware update 1.5.1.

Thank you.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I would leverage the 45MP of the EOS R5 and just add the 1.4x, giving an effective 700mm at the max zoom, with an effective max aperture of f/10, based on using the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

the 800 is an f11, that alone raises a red flag for me

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

There's a lady in our club that uses the 800 with good results. You have to wind up the ISO because if the F11 minimum but it is a lot lighter than the zoom and more mangeable.

I think it really depends on whether you'll be opportunistic hand holding for the shots or tripod mounted in which case the zoom and 1.4x would likely be the better option.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

The enormously greater versatility of the 100-500 + 1.4 extender, without carrying an even larger case of lenses, is my decision maker.
Both setups have excellent IQ, but only a small share of photos require the magnification of 800mm, and 700 vs 800 is not very different. If you somehow need even more magnification, get the 2.0 extender for 1000mm, at the cost of frequently needing very high ISO.

agillot

For outdoor in sunny day , or cloudy bright , f11 is manageable .a lot lighter to carry around .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The 800 is smaller, lighter, and easier to manage - that makes it "better" for LOTS of people ....

Optimizing the native IQ of the 100-500 and cropping and using pixel enlargement software can also work quite well .... you should try it. An important aspect of this is your AF will be better than the other options.

I use 560mm on crop frame regularly for birds - 840mm FF equiv. - and I can tell you that you need at least that much "reach" for birds....

For birds I highly recommend having the ability be at 600mm FF eq. and going the at least 840mm FF eq. if needed.
.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

dbrugger25,
I also have the R5. I used my 100-400 II with a 1.4 for a while. I then got the 800mmf11. I really like that lens. It does have a couple shortfalls for me. It does not do great on autofocus on BIF. And the minimum focus distance made me back up and lose a few shots when I ran across songbirds ect. when out looking for bigger birds a longer way away. More aggravation than deal killer. I was like Paul (CHG_CANON), I was not going to get the 100-500 when I had a great 100-400II and the 1.4. Then I had a compelling reason to get the 100-500. My wife wanted to use the 100-400 and 1.4 on her camera. Just the excuse I needed. Took me a few days to find one last October. I got the RF 1.4 in November. I had also been shooting with a 300 f2.8 II and a 2X for two years with great results. After a time with the 100-500 and 1.4 I sold the 300 f2.8 II. Long story to say buy the RF 1.4 and hold off for now on the 800mm. For the naysayers, I have some very good shots with the 800mm at f11. I would have never thought it would be that good. You can see some examples with all mentioned lens with my R5 at my Flickr account. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dj63401/
Have fun,
Dave

dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

My thanks to all of you for your thoughtful replies.

gasstro Loc: Indiana

I have both lenses, the 800mm obviously has a few shortfalls such as the F11, no tripod collar, although this lens is light enough to handhold. My go to is the 100-500mm, sometimes I add the 1.4 teleconverter. This lens is also light enough to handhold. With the ibis in your camera you should be able to get good results. I think without the TC it will focus faster. When it's sunny and I want more reach I go to the 800mm with good results. Whichever I use I always want more reach, but not at the expense of sharp images that both these lenses can produce.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The RF 800mm f/11 is slightly smaller, slightly lighter and a lot less expensive. But it also is more plasticky, has a FIXED aperture (f/11 only), has slightly slower STM focus drive, is not nearly as versatile as the zoom and is NOT AS SHARP (see link below).

At $1000 the RF 800mm f/11 IS STM is a bargain! As a non-L Canon lens, the lens hood is sold separately, for an additional $55.

However the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM is better built (after all, it's an L-series, which includes the hood), gives you both an adjustable aperture and a whole range of focal lengths to work with all the way from 100mm to 700mm, assuming you get a 1.4X to use with it. At 500mm with a 1.4X added it "becomes" a 700mm f/10 combo... a little less "reach" than the 800mm, but a wee bit brighter.

The 100-500mm has a typical tripod mounting ring that allows the camera and lens to be rotated from landscape to portrait orientation. The 800mm has a tripod mount, but it is fixed and any change in orientation will need to be done with the tripod head instead.

Note that the full range of the 100-500mm cannot be used when a teleconverter is installed. If I recall correctly, only the 300mm to 500mm range can be used (making for a 420-700mm combo). Of course, that's where you need the 1.4X anyway.

The RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM ain't no bargain at $2900. And an RF 1.4X teleconverter to use with it adds another $500. That's more than triple the cost of the 800mm and it's lens hood.

Compare image sharpness for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=1513&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

There's not much difference in optical vignetting: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=1513&CameraComp=1508&FLI=4&API=0

Not surprising for telephotos, neither lens has significant distortion: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&FLIComp=0&LensComp=1513&CameraComp=1508&FLI=4

You can compare the two lenses' specifications at the above website, too. Probably the most notable things there are that the 100-500mm is MUCH closer focusing, to just over 3 feet. The closest the 800mm can focus is around 20 feet! The 100-500mm can render up to 0.33X magnification.... while the 800mm at best does 0.14X. Also of note, the 100-500mm uses fairly commonly available 77mm filters, while the 800mm uses larger 95mm that are a bit harder to find.

Bryan's full reviews are interesting...

- RF 100-500mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-100-500mm-F4.5-7.1-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
- RF 800mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

I don't have either lens personally, but have seriously considered both and will end up with one or the other eventually. The 800mm is a very innovative piece of work from Canon. It's some real "out of the box" thinking! It's sort of like a modern take of the "mirror lens" craze of the 1980s and 1990s... a reasonably compact lens for the masses who drive cars that cost less than the super telephoto alternatives. For its versatility I lean toward the 100-500mm personally, especially if Canon meets my expectations with an APS-C R-series camera. (Make a "mirrorless 7D Mark II" and I'll buy two!)

mdoing

I have both 100-500 with 1.4X and the 800 f11. I tend to use the 100-500 with 1.4X more than the 800, have not really tried the 800 with the 1.4X. Both are great, the 800 is inexpensive with some compromises, but 800!. If you have neither and are budget conscious, get the 800, if you have the 100-500, get the extender. I find that I really need the 700 or 800 for small birds, I am only happy with the 500 when going after big birds. You really can't go wrong with these lenses.