Canon 200-600 F9 vs Canon 100-500 w/ 1.4 conveyer F10: Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife...

JW from PA

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses. Just so you all know, I have watched several reviews and I already own the 100-500 and converter. I am however considering buying the 200-800. Thanks for your input.

JW from PA

Title correction. Canon 200-800 F9 vs Canon 100-500 W/ 1.4 Converter

MountainDave

I've used the 100-500 for a couple of years. If I were making the choice now, I'd still go with the 100-500. It's better made, has higher quality elements, a little better IQ and is a lot lighter. I've watched a number of reviews of the 200-800 (including head-to-head comapros) and it looks pretty impressive for the bucks for those who really want the extra reach. Bird shooting season is at hand I'll be assessing how much I might use a 200-800. It's possible I would buy one as an addition if I think I'll use it enough to justify adding it. I think I'm less than 50-50.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

JW from PA wrote:

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses. Just so you all know, I have watched several reviews and I already own the 100-500 and converter. I am however considering buying the 200-800. Thanks for your input.

To me, having both lenses may be excessive. Perhaps, sell the 100-500mm lens because of the redundancy. I might keep the converter but I don’t know the f-stop on either lens. Perhaps you could give a little more info about the lenses and converter. If you intend on selling a lens a photo may be helpful. If not for the money,you may wish to donate the lens to a photography club or High School. You can get a decent tax donation!

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

JW from PA wrote:

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses.

A donation of a lens can really benefit a bunch of high school students just learning to photograph wildlife. You could challenge these kids to getting a photo from a specific animal or flower from a zoo, aviary or botanic garden.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Scruples wrote:

To me, having both lenses may be excessive. Perhaps, sell the 100-500mm lens because of the redundancy. I might keep the converter but I don’t know the f-stop on either lens. Perhaps you could give a little more info about the lenses and converter. If you intend on selling a lens a photo may be helpful. If not for the money,you may wish to donate the lens to a photography club or High School. You can get a decent tax donation!

I was using the 100-400 Z lens with a 1.4 TC before I got the 180-600 Z. The 180-600 is great but there’s no way I’d get rid of my 100-400. It’s my go to if I’m shooting some place like a garden. It gives me more flexibility if I need reach and the close focusing ability gets me to almost macro.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

JW from PA wrote:

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses. Just so you all know, I have watched several reviews and I already own the 100-500 and converter. I am however considering buying the 200-800. Thanks for your input.

Which ever one has the best AF with YOUR particular camera model - the odds are therefore stacked against using the 1.4X which by default slows the AF.

JW from PA

Sorry, folks if you misunstood what I was asking. Please re-read the post. I also put the F Stop in the description. To set the record straight I have no intention of selling my 100-500. Thanks for your responses. Joe W.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I was using the 100-400 Z lens with a 1.4 TC before I got the 180-600 Z. The 180-600 is great but there’s no way I’d get rid of my 100-400. It’s my go to if I’m shooting some place like a garden. It gives me more flexibility if I need reach and the close focusing ability gets me to almost macro.

My wife keeps yelling and nagging me. Why do I want to buy “another” lens? Why do I need to lift all that weight onto my shoulder?

MountainDave

If you are concerned about the small aperture, don't be, there are noise reduction tools from several companies, including PS, that work great. I need the small aperture for DOF reasons if I'm close to a small bird.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

JW from PA wrote:

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses. Just so you all know, I have watched several reviews and I already own the 100-500 and converter. I am however considering buying the 200-800. Thanks for your input.

I am trying to lessen my glass burden. That is why I texted my response. Seeing that you are not interested in loosing or selling I think that I would make an exclusive body and lens bag. Specifically use the new lens for a particular body. That way, you can get better photos from a specific gear set-up. I suggested the donation because when I was in high school, I had no money to buy gear and relied on gear that was donated. It made a big difference in photographing!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

JW from PA wrote:

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses. Just so you all know, I have watched several reviews and I already own the 100-500 and converter. I am however considering buying the 200-800. Thanks for your input.

Lets go from worst to best
Worst: 100-500 with 1.4
Better: 100-500 without 1.4
Best: 200-800 for reach
Bestest: Sony 200-600

DRM Loc: NC

JW from PA wrote:

Just curious as to the canon users on this site their thoughts on which one you would purchase if you were wanting a new wildlife lenses. Just so you all know, I have watched several reviews and I already own the 100-500 and converter. I am however considering buying the 200-800. Thanks for your input.

I have the RF 100-500 and RF 1.4x. I also have the RF 200-800 on order. With the teleconverter attached, the 100-500 gets you to 700mm at f/10. The 200-800 gains 100mm of focal length and 1/3 stop of light. When the extra reach is needed--such as for distant and/or dangerous wildlife or the upcoming solar eclipse--the 200-800 would be my choice. Otherwise, I expect the 100-500, an L lens (the 200-800 is not an L model), without teleconverter to see more use.

If you order the 200-800, be prepared to wait awhile. Mine has been backordered since late November (B&H).

cmceagle

DRM wrote:

I have the RF 100-500 and RF 1.4x. I also have th... (show quote)

I'm also waiting for the 200-800 from B&H since November. I have the 100-500 L and the backorder for the 200-800 doesn't have any end in sight, I considered getting the RF 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-500. However, I read the 1.4 can only be attached when the 100-500 is extended to 300 or more. I learned with a 1.4 teleconverter and the 100-400 II L the number of focus points were dramatically reduced. Assuming a similar result on the 100-500 and the restriction of greater than 300, I decided to pass on the teeconverter idea and continue to wait for the 200-800.

DRM Loc: NC

cmceagle wrote:

I'm also waiting for the 200-800 from B&H sinc... (show quote)

You're correct regarding the teleconverter being impossible to attach unless the lens is extended to at least 300mm. An odd design perhaps, but not a practical limitation since a teleconverter adds no benefit over the native focal length range at any focal length less than about 357mm (250mm if one is using a 2x teleconverter). Just a quirk one has to remember when using the 100-500.

Access to fewer focus points, however, could hamper results, particularly for certain types of wildlife photography.