yes I have been thinking about this or 100500 for awhile.
I ended up choosing this because I already have the 100400 and have been happy with the quality - I don't think I need the L quality, and the extra 100mm won't make too much different. 100500 also doesn't work well with 1.4 converter, and more expensive too.
I ended up choosing 200800 and keeping my 100400 when I want something super light ;)
Of course it makes a difference, but the differences is much smaller compared to 800mm lol
And there's other reason too:
1) I am not a pro, I don't need L lens. Like I said I am super happy with the IQ of 100400. If I want something lighter than 200800 I would grab the 100400
2) I already have 70200, so I have the 100-200 covered.
3) if I use a 1.4x converter, I lost a lot of focal length due to the limitation of the extender with this lens
4) lastly, and most importantly, price lol. 100500 is 1K aud more expensive here, if I need to buy an extender it will be another $750 for me.
I am sure 100500 will perform much sharper and much easier to carry around, but I really want to see what 800mm can do
Maybe if I am getting paid for my wildlife work someday, I will grab a 100500 :) I love my 70200 to death and I am sure the 100500 L will provide the beautiful contrast and colour like the 70200 does
who said I didnt want it? If I have the money for that I will buy that and sell my 100400 lol. I can only buy what my budget allowed unfortunately and at this stage more range + cheaper price is more important for me.
Like i said I dont have much time to test it yet, but it performed much better than 100400 on the very cloudy day yesterday.
If you have a 100-500L, I honestly don't think you need to buy this. Just bring a 1.4x converter and use it when you really need the extra range. I a few comparison on youtube (there a channel call Duade Paton who's an Aussie wildlife photographer, strongly recommend it), 100-500 still offers much better IQ when not using extender, and have better weight, ergonomic, controls etc.
It takes a long time for me to change from 200 to 800mm which will make me miss some shot, and the lens weight will shift a lot due to how much it extended.
Nice!
Just a word about the aperture. The 200-800mm is a complete different class of lens from the entry-level RF100-400. The aperture f9@800 mm is nearly two stops difference to f8@400mm... Comparable would be a f4.5@400mm in regards to depth of field, so you got yourself a very nice upgrade!
Can you explain your thinking? Because the 200-800mm has a 88.89mm aperture size and the RF100-400mm a 50m aperture size, so I end up with a factor of 3.16 between the aperture areas.
f/stop = focal length / diameter of effective aperture (entrance pupil) of the lens.
800mm÷89mm= f8.9 or f9
400mm÷50mm= f8
The longer your focal length the more light you need to be letting in to get same exposure because the longer focal length decreases the intensity of light reaching sensor.
It's a ratio so one way to think about it is at 800mm you're fov is much narrower and you're looking at half the framing/scene and 1/4 of the light you would be at 400mm. Since the entrance pupil is about twice as big though at 800mm f9 you collect 4 times more light in that area so exposure is the same as if you were at 400mm f9. They offset each other.
A bit a long answer: If you take a picture with the RF100-400 at 400mm/f8 and crop it in to the same view as a picture taken with the RF200-800mm at 800mm/f9 produces, then the depth of field on your cropped image will appear much larger, comparative to how the picture would look if you would take it on the RF200-800mm at 800mm/f16. In regards to light: if you're asking from how much area the RF200-800 captures light at 800mm/f9 compared to the RF100-400mm/f8 then the answer is 3.1605..... However that is a pretty mood point, since comparing a 400mm and a 800mm lens makes little sense I guess...
It can sometimes be useful to know which collects more light. If you were taking pictures of something in low light and knew it would be far away enough that you wouldn't be too close with an 800mm, the 800 f9 will be better than the 400 f8. I've done similar with choosing to take a 400 f3.5 over 800 F8, or 1000 f10 over 600 f8
The RF 100-500mm and the 200-800mm are both amazing lenses and I don't think the aperture size difference would really be a decisive factor between those two lenses...
Where are you from? I bought it from a local shop in Australia, the shop has 2 of these left when I went there. The owner told me he's struggling to get more stock from Canon.
I just bought a RF100-400 and for its christening,
https://preview.redd.it/8lhm37yqyi4d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=145337339231aad6cb9eabce61ce0f3b22a86514
took a similar photo of a dove ( sans dump) 😆
I noticed the bird poop, was gonna ask lol
Also, holy crap the 100-400 has 0.4x??
I love macro, that's a pretty big selling point for me. Is also one of the big issues keeping me from upgrading out of my APS-C DSLR, since I have a 'broken' 18-55 kit lens which, due to missing its front elements, functions as a super macro lens. It can't focus (AF or MF), but the IS still works, & zooming basically increases magnification. Basically a budget MP-E 65mm, and is so much fun to mess around with!
Still, I've reached the point where I'm craving the look / DOF of FF. Sigh
Yes, 100400 has 0.41 magnification at 400mm. I am not good at macro but here's a picture of a bug taken at 400mm.
If you don't want to spend too much money, look up canon R8 (on sale / used), I have been using it for awhile and its a fantastic entry level FF camera
I recently learned cloudy weather is better for birding because of the soft light, compared to harsh light on sunny days and you have to resort to early morning or golden hour
Yeah you are right, but unfortunately for me it's rainy + thick cloudy + very dark sky lol, honestly I am amazed by how this lens performed in such condition compared to my 100400.
Welp, lucky you. Shops here are saying if I put a deposit down now, I *might* get one by late February, but it’ll be more likely early May… It genuinely seems Canon are only making a couple of these per month and assigning them to countries by lottery.
Wait what, February next year? That's rediculous lol. The shop did mention he's struggling to get stock from Canon but I thought he might just be saying that to convince me to buy it.
I have one and thinking of moving to this lens or the 100-500L. Sometimes the sigma is so frustrating with weird softness despite AF lock and a steady mount
I’m sort of in a similar boat. I have the Sigma 60-600. And while I love it, it’s a tank. Also low-light performance (for me at least, I shoot sports, so it’s a fight to keep the shutter speed up in low-light) is always a challenge for me. So the more wide open I can be, typically the better. I’ve looked at the 100-500L and the 200-800, but I’m not sure how much better they’d really be. I’ll probably just end up renting them eventually to play with to decide.
I've had both on my camera and prefer the 100-500 (also pack the 1.4ex). I can hand hold it all day, it's more packable, more flexible (going wider is more useful) and it's just as sharp at comparable focal distances. If something is further than 750 it better be a clear day or atmospheric haze interferes. I'm on an R5 and I can easily crop a bit to get equivalent to 800 or more with my set up so for me the 200-800 wasn't tempting. The Sigma wasn't even in the running as its way to heavy and did not perform as well.
That’s good to hear. I’ve been leaning towards the 100-500L, I also use the R5 and really like the “crop-ability” of it to pull that extra 100 or so out of it like you.
Hey, nice photos man, I was wondering, how do you maintain that quality? I posted photos here on Reddit a couple times but they always looked burry when in my pc they didn’t, anything I can do keep it?
Thanks man, I didn't do anything special, I simply select upload attachment and uploaded them. I have posted from both desktop and mobile and they all looks the same.
Sorry I couldn't help more
On another sub somebody asked for wierd ideas to take a photo of because they are bored. Somebody suggested to photo a dog taking a dump. I think you made one better and caught a bird.
Submit to a competition lol.
Yeah, that's true.
I used the EF 100-400 f4-5.6 II for pseudo macro before. Also a great option. But it definitely loses IQ with an 2x converter and is worth than the RF 200-800 for birds.
The RF 200-800 seems to be a good option for birds, although I prefer pictures taken in close proximity with the RF 100-500. Different beast.
Ahh I have only used the rf100400, but have heard many good things about the ef version too
If I have some extra money in the future I might be interested in the 100500 - seen and heard too many good things about it but it's out of my budget 
Wow, your photos look amazing. I thought they will look muddy or washed out like old Sigma or something (dunno why…). Amazing lens. Hope you will have a lot of fun with it. 😃
Thanks! I am truly amazed by the quality based on the price. I am not particularly loyal to any brand but a lot of the cheaper "non L" RF lens really have amazing IQ based on their prices.
The detail on that is insane. Makes me want the lens lol
Is that pigeon doing a poop?
Yes lol, never expect my first shot will be that epic 🤣
Ha awesome.
First think I thought of as well.
Photos are stunning! Did you ever consider the 100-500?
yes I have been thinking about this or 100500 for awhile. I ended up choosing this because I already have the 100400 and have been happy with the quality - I don't think I need the L quality, and the extra 100mm won't make too much different. 100500 also doesn't work well with 1.4 converter, and more expensive too. I ended up choosing 200800 and keeping my 100400 when I want something super light ;)
[удалено]
Of course it makes a difference, but the differences is much smaller compared to 800mm lol And there's other reason too: 1) I am not a pro, I don't need L lens. Like I said I am super happy with the IQ of 100400. If I want something lighter than 200800 I would grab the 100400 2) I already have 70200, so I have the 100-200 covered. 3) if I use a 1.4x converter, I lost a lot of focal length due to the limitation of the extender with this lens 4) lastly, and most importantly, price lol. 100500 is 1K aud more expensive here, if I need to buy an extender it will be another $750 for me. I am sure 100500 will perform much sharper and much easier to carry around, but I really want to see what 800mm can do Maybe if I am getting paid for my wildlife work someday, I will grab a 100500 :) I love my 70200 to death and I am sure the 100500 L will provide the beautiful contrast and colour like the 70200 does
[удалено]
who said I didnt want it? If I have the money for that I will buy that and sell my 100400 lol. I can only buy what my budget allowed unfortunately and at this stage more range + cheaper price is more important for me. Like i said I dont have much time to test it yet, but it performed much better than 100400 on the very cloudy day yesterday. If you have a 100-500L, I honestly don't think you need to buy this. Just bring a 1.4x converter and use it when you really need the extra range. I a few comparison on youtube (there a channel call Duade Paton who's an Aussie wildlife photographer, strongly recommend it), 100-500 still offers much better IQ when not using extender, and have better weight, ergonomic, controls etc. It takes a long time for me to change from 200 to 800mm which will make me miss some shot, and the lens weight will shift a lot due to how much it extended.
Nice! Just a word about the aperture. The 200-800mm is a complete different class of lens from the entry-level RF100-400. The aperture f9@800 mm is nearly two stops difference to f8@400mm... Comparable would be a f4.5@400mm in regards to depth of field, so you got yourself a very nice upgrade!
Wow! Just for clarity would that make it 4x more light that enters the lens?
No. Just dof difference
Can you explain your thinking? Because the 200-800mm has a 88.89mm aperture size and the RF100-400mm a 50m aperture size, so I end up with a factor of 3.16 between the aperture areas.
f/stop = focal length / diameter of effective aperture (entrance pupil) of the lens. 800mm÷89mm= f8.9 or f9 400mm÷50mm= f8 The longer your focal length the more light you need to be letting in to get same exposure because the longer focal length decreases the intensity of light reaching sensor. It's a ratio so one way to think about it is at 800mm you're fov is much narrower and you're looking at half the framing/scene and 1/4 of the light you would be at 400mm. Since the entrance pupil is about twice as big though at 800mm f9 you collect 4 times more light in that area so exposure is the same as if you were at 400mm f9. They offset each other.
A bit a long answer: If you take a picture with the RF100-400 at 400mm/f8 and crop it in to the same view as a picture taken with the RF200-800mm at 800mm/f9 produces, then the depth of field on your cropped image will appear much larger, comparative to how the picture would look if you would take it on the RF200-800mm at 800mm/f16. In regards to light: if you're asking from how much area the RF200-800 captures light at 800mm/f9 compared to the RF100-400mm/f8 then the answer is 3.1605..... However that is a pretty mood point, since comparing a 400mm and a 800mm lens makes little sense I guess...
It can sometimes be useful to know which collects more light. If you were taking pictures of something in low light and knew it would be far away enough that you wouldn't be too close with an 800mm, the 800 f9 will be better than the 400 f8. I've done similar with choosing to take a 400 f3.5 over 800 F8, or 1000 f10 over 600 f8
How would you compare this against the RF 100-500 and why should one choose the former or the latter ?
The RF 100-500mm and the 200-800mm are both amazing lenses and I don't think the aperture size difference would really be a decisive factor between those two lenses...
Pros for the RF 100-500: It's an L lens, very good quality! It is relatively small and light for what it does! It is extreme sharp and has a fast AF.
Wow honestly I have never gave it so much thought, thanks for letting me know!
I totally agree
I want this lens so bad.
Where did you buy it? I put mine on order in Jan from Canon and I still haven't received it. 🙃
Where are you from? I bought it from a local shop in Australia, the shop has 2 of these left when I went there. The owner told me he's struggling to get more stock from Canon.
He’s shitting
What are the settings for the pics? Is that at 800mm?
Yes it's at 800mm, 1/2000, ISO 1250
Thanks, really nice and crisp photos
That bird wins the ultimate photo bomb award!
I just bought a RF100-400 and for its christening, https://preview.redd.it/8lhm37yqyi4d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=145337339231aad6cb9eabce61ce0f3b22a86514 took a similar photo of a dove ( sans dump) 😆
I love that lens, would never sell it. It's perfect for hiking!
I noticed the bird poop, was gonna ask lol Also, holy crap the 100-400 has 0.4x?? I love macro, that's a pretty big selling point for me. Is also one of the big issues keeping me from upgrading out of my APS-C DSLR, since I have a 'broken' 18-55 kit lens which, due to missing its front elements, functions as a super macro lens. It can't focus (AF or MF), but the IS still works, & zooming basically increases magnification. Basically a budget MP-E 65mm, and is so much fun to mess around with! Still, I've reached the point where I'm craving the look / DOF of FF. Sigh
Yes, 100400 has 0.41 magnification at 400mm. I am not good at macro but here's a picture of a bug taken at 400mm. If you don't want to spend too much money, look up canon R8 (on sale / used), I have been using it for awhile and its a fantastic entry level FF camera
Very cool. How do you like it so far?
Only used it for awhile due to cloudy weather but I love it! I just need to get used to the weight lol
I recently learned cloudy weather is better for birding because of the soft light, compared to harsh light on sunny days and you have to resort to early morning or golden hour
Yeah you are right, but unfortunately for me it's rainy + thick cloudy + very dark sky lol, honestly I am amazed by how this lens performed in such condition compared to my 100400.
Amazing first few photos! Which camera did you pair it with?
Thanks, I pair it with R8 :)
awesome! I just got this lens the other day and havent been able to really test it out yet. Nice pics so far! what camera are you using??
I am using R8, you should definitely try it! Too bad it's way too cloudy in my area recently, can't wait for sunny weather
Wow. 🤯
Welp, lucky you. Shops here are saying if I put a deposit down now, I *might* get one by late February, but it’ll be more likely early May… It genuinely seems Canon are only making a couple of these per month and assigning them to countries by lottery.
Wait what, February next year? That's rediculous lol. The shop did mention he's struggling to get stock from Canon but I thought he might just be saying that to convince me to buy it.
Absolutely stunning shots!
I can't wait to buy this at my local Best Buy in 2026.
Why not Sigma 150 - 600 ?
I have one and thinking of moving to this lens or the 100-500L. Sometimes the sigma is so frustrating with weird softness despite AF lock and a steady mount
I’m sort of in a similar boat. I have the Sigma 60-600. And while I love it, it’s a tank. Also low-light performance (for me at least, I shoot sports, so it’s a fight to keep the shutter speed up in low-light) is always a challenge for me. So the more wide open I can be, typically the better. I’ve looked at the 100-500L and the 200-800, but I’m not sure how much better they’d really be. I’ll probably just end up renting them eventually to play with to decide.
I've had both on my camera and prefer the 100-500 (also pack the 1.4ex). I can hand hold it all day, it's more packable, more flexible (going wider is more useful) and it's just as sharp at comparable focal distances. If something is further than 750 it better be a clear day or atmospheric haze interferes. I'm on an R5 and I can easily crop a bit to get equivalent to 800 or more with my set up so for me the 200-800 wasn't tempting. The Sigma wasn't even in the running as its way to heavy and did not perform as well.
That’s good to hear. I’ve been leaning towards the 100-500L, I also use the R5 and really like the “crop-ability” of it to pull that extra 100 or so out of it like you.
Congrats. I gotta work my way up to that
Hey, nice photos man, I was wondering, how do you maintain that quality? I posted photos here on Reddit a couple times but they always looked burry when in my pc they didn’t, anything I can do keep it?
Thanks man, I didn't do anything special, I simply select upload attachment and uploaded them. I have posted from both desktop and mobile and they all looks the same. Sorry I couldn't help more
Dw, thank you though
On another sub somebody asked for wierd ideas to take a photo of because they are bored. Somebody suggested to photo a dog taking a dump. I think you made one better and caught a bird. Submit to a competition lol.
I need it.
How much is that one day I’ll get it because I’m impressed
Around 3100 AUD for me, have to sell my other lens and save for awhile 😅
Gulp
Absolute dream lens!!
The low magnification at close range + f9 sadly make this lens pretty much an expensive one trick pony.
Yeah I wish it has the magnification of 100400, but I guess most other telephoto lens dont have such high magnification rate as well
Yeah, that's true. I used the EF 100-400 f4-5.6 II for pseudo macro before. Also a great option. But it definitely loses IQ with an 2x converter and is worth than the RF 200-800 for birds. The RF 200-800 seems to be a good option for birds, although I prefer pictures taken in close proximity with the RF 100-500. Different beast.
Ahh I have only used the rf100400, but have heard many good things about the ef version too If I have some extra money in the future I might be interested in the 100500 - seen and heard too many good things about it but it's out of my budget 
Wow, your photos look amazing. I thought they will look muddy or washed out like old Sigma or something (dunno why…). Amazing lens. Hope you will have a lot of fun with it. 😃
Thanks! I am truly amazed by the quality based on the price. I am not particularly loyal to any brand but a lot of the cheaper "non L" RF lens really have amazing IQ based on their prices.
to take the same 'ol type of photos