Finally picked up an R7 for birding around my local wetlands but my old EF glass is killing me with the adapter. Im struggling to choose between the RF 100-500mm and the cheaper RF 200-800mm. The 100-500 is lighter and sharper obviously but that 800mm reach sounds insane for those shy herons. My budget is around 3k tops so that definitely rules out the big primes. Im heading to Costa Rica in two months so I need to decide soon before I lose my mind. Is the extra reach on the 200-800 worth the loss in image quality compared to the 100-500, or should I just stick with the sharper lens and maybe crop in?
Honestly, the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM is the safer bet for travel. It handles low light better and the sharpness is legit.
- The reach on the Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM is tempting but it is massive.
- R7 sensor crops anyway, so you get plenty of zoom.
- You save space in your bag for other gear.
Building on the earlier suggestion, the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM is just magical.
- Pack light for Costa Rica!
- Shoot raw for cropping. Have the best time ever!
Adding my two cents here. If you are going to Costa Rica, the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM is way more versatile for hiking. The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM is great for reach but honestly a pain to carry all day.
- The 100-500mm focuses closer, which helps for those shy birds.
- You wont regret the L-series build quality in humid rainforests.
- The extra weight of the 200-800mm is just gonna wear you out.
Nice, didn't know that
