Best image quality on R5? The RF 800mm f/11 or the RF 100-500mm with teleconverters?

[hovland]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

Well this is just going to be my own biased opinion. I think the IQ between the RF 100-500 + a TC, and the RF 800 F11, is going to be splitting hairs. Both can produce tack sharp shots.

I've heard it said that because the RF 800 is a diffractive optics design, it will have a little less contrast ? Personally speaking, all my shots are going to be put through a PS workflow anyway. If they need a bit more contrast, that's easy.

I did actually rent the 100-500, but almost sure it was damaged, and that one made terrible images compared to my RF 800, but I know that's not really fair to even mention.

I thought it was kind of lame too, how the 100-500 with TC's could barely be contracted.

And IF I owned the 100-500, it would have a TC on it nearly always.

JMPO, but I think the RF 100-500 is a very nice lens, but overpriced for what it is. I guess if one "really needed" to be able to zoom in and out often, it would make a little more sense.

Personally, I wouldn't trade you my RF 800 for the RF 100-500 straight across

 

[Tr3v420]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

Personally, I wouldn't trade you my RF 800 for the RF 100-500 straight across

If anyone is interested, i WILL take that trade for my 800mm f11 lol.

 

[spec68]

I've never used the RF 800 before but have the 100-500 and use w/ the RF 1.4x extender all the time. The RF extenders being a PITA w/ the 100-500, notwithstanding, the 1.4x the best extender I've ever used. The loss of image quality at F11-F14 is negligible.

 

[Leigh A]

The obvious primary difference in those lenses is versatility, which the 100-500 has "in spades" over the 800 F11; so, differences in image quality are largely irrelevant nit-picking.

 

[Emile15]

All I can say is that I recently sold the 800 because ultimately the images were softer than those I get with the 100-500. I do not use any extenders though. If I want more reach I put the 100-500 on the R7.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

All I can say is that I recently sold the 800 because ultimately the images were softer than those I get with the 100-500. I do not use any extenders though. If I want more reach I put the 100-500 on the R7.

Soft ??? Never mind my experiences. That is just not something I hear about the RF 800 F11. Too slow….. for some stuff, okay. Not weather sealed, true. But soft ?
Now the RF 100-500 I rented was definitely soft… but that lens was damaged, so it’s probably not fair for me to mention it.
Also, for the majority of my shooting, the 100-500 > on my R7 would be too short. The RF 800 on my R7 though, for a 1280mm equivalent, now we are talking

No combo has ever helped to cure my big lens envy as this one

 

[Photoclever]

The Digital Picture has all of these comparisons available.

800 vs 100-500 @ 500

Loading…

www.the-digital-picture.com

800 vs 100-500 @ 700 (1.4x)

Loading…

www.the-digital-picture.com

800 vs 100-500 @ 1000 (2x)

Loading…

www.the-digital-picture.com

I've got the 5Ds and EF 100-400L II. I can tell you that for sports I have no hesitation cropping down 2x and printing up to 16x20. I'm not even sure how much you lose relative to a teleconverter when using a 45/50mp sensor. A teleconverter will let you capture more pixels, but the sharpness loss makes it closer than you might imagine.

 

[MikeJ9116]

If the cost between the two options isn't a concern I would pick the RF 100-500mm with a teleconvertor. The reason would be this combination is more versatile than a 800mm prime. For situations where you don't need the reach, or lighting conditions make an f/11 lens unusable, detaching the teleconvertor lets you use a much brighter lens while gaining sharpness, IQ and better AF.

 

[R2D2]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

As the TDP tests indicate, the RF 100-500 + 1.4x and the RF 800 produce fairly similar results when maximizing image size. However it’s the DIFFERENCES between the two lenses that should be considered when making a choice.

Ask yourself if you’ll ever be needing the wider focal length range that the zoom provides (+/- 1.4x TC). Also whether or not you’ll encounter any subjects closer than 20 feet away (the 800’s MFD). And if so, will you have the opportunity to add an extension tube at that juncture to shorten the MFD somewhat? Also, will you be shooting during inclement weather? For instance I’ve used the 100-500 in conditions from blizzards to rainshowers (the 800 isn’t weather-sealed to the extent that the zoom is).

Usage is really the key here.

I’ve shot with the EF 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii pretty extensively, and the RF zoom is definitely the better performer with the teleconverter attached. The extra reach is noticeable, and the sharpness and AF speed both remain extremely high (on my R5).

I hike a lot, and having a super-short MFD has proven invaluable (as has the 420-700mm zoom range that I’m usually at). However if you’re ALWAYS focal length limited, and at the same time ALWAYS at a long distance from your subjects (20 feet +) and NEVER caught out in bad weather, then the RF 800 (as an only tele lens) may work out just fine for you.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

As the TDP tests indicate, the RF 100-500 + 1.4x and the RF 800 produce fairly similar results when maximizing image size. However it’s the DIFFERENCES between the two lenses that should be considered when making a choice.

Ask yourself if you’ll ever be needing the wider focal length range that the zoom provides (+/- 1.4x TC). Also whether or not you’ll encounter any subjects closer than 20 feet away (the 800’s MFD). And if so, will you have the opportunity to add an extension tube at that juncture to shorten the MFD somewhat? Also, will you be shooting during inclement weather? For instance I’ve used the 100-500 in conditions from blizzards to rainshowers (the 800 isn’t weather-sealed to the extent that the zoom is).

Usage is really the key here.

I’ve shot with the EF 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii pretty extensively, and the RF zoom is definitely the better performer with the teleconverter attached. The extra reach is noticeable, and the sharpness and AF speed both remain extremely high (on my R5).

I hike a lot, and having a super-short MFD has proven invaluable (as has the 420-700mm zoom range that I’m usually at). However if you’re ALWAYS focal length limited, and at the same time ALWAYS at a long distance from your subjects (20 feet +) and NEVER caught out in bad weather, then the RF 800 (as an only lens) may work out just fine for you.

R2

I think this is is a great assessment. I have to stop and remind myself, that a lot of folks shoot more random stuff, and the versatility of a lens, probably means more to them than it does me. Back when I shot with the Sigma 150-600, I was pegged at 600 95+% of the time, and usually, that still was not long enough.

As for weather sealing, forget the gear, if there is even a chance of rain, I'm not going more than 100ft from the house, or car. I hate being out in lousy weather, let along shooting in it. I only do this for "fun" I don't have to abuse myself lol

Anyway for myself, Id go with the 800 even if the 100-500 + 1.4 TC were slightly better IQ.... but it really does / should have WAY more to do with an individuals uses for there gear, vs. absolute IQ.

 

[R2D2]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

As the TDP tests indicate, the RF 100-500 + 1.4x and the RF 800 produce fairly similar results when maximizing image size. However it’s the DIFFERENCES between the two lenses that should be considered when making a choice.

Ask yourself if you’ll ever be needing the wider focal length range that the zoom provides (+/- 1.4x TC). Also whether or not you’ll encounter any subjects closer than 20 feet away (the 800’s MFD). And if so, will you have the opportunity to add an extension tube at that juncture to shorten the MFD somewhat? Also, will you be shooting during inclement weather? For instance I’ve used the 100-500 in conditions from blizzards to rainshowers (the 800 isn’t weather-sealed to the extent that the zoom is).

Usage is really the key here.

I’ve shot with the EF 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii pretty extensively, and the RF zoom is definitely the better performer with the teleconverter attached. The extra reach is noticeable, and the sharpness and AF speed both remain extremely high (on my R5).

I hike a lot, and having a super-short MFD has proven invaluable (as has the 420-700mm zoom range that I’m usually at). However if you’re ALWAYS focal length limited, and at the same time ALWAYS at a long distance from your subjects (20 feet +) and NEVER caught out in bad weather, then the RF 800 (as an only lens) may work out just fine for you.

R2

I think this is is a great assessment. I have to stop and remind myself, that a lot of folks shoot more random stuff, and the versatility of a lens, probably means more to them than it does me. Back when I shot with the Sigma 150-600, I was pegged at 600 95+% of the time, and usually, that still was not long enough.

As for weather sealing, forget the gear, if there is even a chance of rain, I'm not going more than 100ft from the house, or car. I hate being out in lousy weather, let along shooting in it. I only do this for "fun" I don't have to abuse myself lol

Anyway for myself, Id go with the 800 even if the 100-500 + 1.4 TC were slightly better IQ.... but it really does / should have WAY more to do with an individuals uses for there gear, vs. absolute IQ.

We definitely agree on all points my friend!

So nice to have so many options! Enjoy your shooting,

R2

 

[natrpixvet]

I have the 100-500 and the 600 f11. I have used the 1.4 x with the zoom and have found the results excellent. I have not tried the 1.4x on the 600 yet but I think trying to shoot at F 16 is somewhat problematic. Also I would think the auto focus on the 100-500 with converter will be better (it has 2 autofocus motors) than the 600, or 800 alone. Another very big advantage of the zoom is it's much better close focusing. I almost never would use a 2x converter due to resolution loss. Also don't forget about the limitation of the autofocus area with the 600 and 800. I still like having both of these lenses when I want to walk around with the much lighter 600.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I have the 100-500 and the 600 f11. I have used the 1.4 x with the zoom and have found the results excellent. I have not tried the 1.4x on the 600 yet but I think trying to shoot at F 16 is somewhat problematic. Also I would think the auto focus on the 100-500 with converter will be better (it has 2 autofocus motors) than the 600, or 800 alone. Another very big advantage of the zoom is it's much better close focusing. I almost never would use a 2x converter due to resolution loss. Also don't forget about the limitation of the autofocus area with the 600 and 800. I still like having both of these lenses when I want to walk around with the much lighter 600.

Yes, I also have the RF 600 F11 and a 1.4 TC. I’ve only used the TC on my 800 F11 once, for moon shots, with my tripod of course, and it worked fine for that, but I agree it would probably struggle for birds or wildlife.
I bought the RF 100-400 just in case I found myself needing to shoot something much closer…… but that might happen like once in the next 5 years…. Based on the last 20 lol

Again though, this just comes back to the personal usage aspect. With a lot of the little birds I chase, it’s hard enough to get 20-25 ft from them, let alone 8 or 10 !

I remember one time last Fall I stumbled into a pack of like 20 Wilson’s Warblers, and I had them landing 2ft from my head ! I even had one briefly touch down on my shoulder

However, even then, I managed to get a bunch of really great shots of the same birds, by choosing the ones that landed 20-25 ft away So my longer MFD still really didn’t hurt me.















--
Every day in the field is a blessing. Nice photos, of beautiful birds and wildlife are just a bonus.
Website

Chris Wolfgram ✝️

Explore Chris Wolfgram ✝️’s 1,110 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

www.LightInEveryCorner.com
No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.

 

[hovland]

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

As the TDP tests indicate, the RF 100-500 + 1.4x and the RF 800 produce fairly similar results when maximizing image size. However it’s the DIFFERENCES between the two lenses that should be considered when making a choice.

Ask yourself if you’ll ever be needing the wider focal length range that the zoom provides (+/- 1.4x TC). Also whether or not you’ll encounter any subjects closer than 20 feet away (the 800’s MFD). And if so, will you have the opportunity to add an extension tube at that juncture to shorten the MFD somewhat? Also, will you be shooting during inclement weather? For instance I’ve used the 100-500 in conditions from blizzards to rainshowers (the 800 isn’t weather-sealed to the extent that the zoom is).

Usage is really the key here.

I’ve shot with the EF 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii pretty extensively, and the RF zoom is definitely the better performer with the teleconverter attached. The extra reach is noticeable, and the sharpness and AF speed both remain extremely high (on my R5).

I hike a lot, and having a super-short MFD has proven invaluable (as has the 420-700mm zoom range that I’m usually at). However if you’re ALWAYS focal length limited, and at the same time ALWAYS at a long distance from your subjects (20 feet +) and NEVER caught out in bad weather, then the RF 800 (as an only lens) may work out just fine for you.

R2

I think this is is a great assessment. I have to stop and remind myself, that a lot of folks shoot more random stuff, and the versatility of a lens, probably means more to them than it does me. Back when I shot with the Sigma 150-600, I was pegged at 600 95+% of the time, and usually, that still was not long enough.

As for weather sealing, forget the gear, if there is even a chance of rain, I'm not going more than 100ft from the house, or car. I hate being out in lousy weather, let along shooting in it. I only do this for "fun" I don't have to abuse myself lol

Anyway for myself, Id go with the 800 even if the 100-500 + 1.4 TC were slightly better IQ.... but it really does / should have WAY more to do with an individuals uses for there gear, vs. absolute IQ.

Many thanks for the insightful comments, it's much appreciated.

Regarding my style, I can use both lenses, and both have their own pros and cons. If only the 100-500 had been able to take teleconverters without the zoom limitation.

However, I did find this German video that compares the 100-500+1,4x and the 800.

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

I lovemy RF 100-500 and RF 1.4x 2.xTc. easily the best lens I have ever owned. I think the combo is great on my R5 and R7. I also have the RF 800mm f11 and I enjoy both lenses, but I prefer the flexibility of the 100-500. Plus I don't love the fixed !/11 of the 800mm. I am glad I have both the 800mm f11 also delivers good results with 1.4x Tc. due to the limited focus area using the R5 with the RF800f/11I find it hard to use for BIF. If I had to choose the choice would be easy for me the RF 100-500 + 1.4X.

Hello

Does anyone have real-life experience with the best image quality at 800mm ?. Is it the 800 f/11 or RF 100-500mm with 1,4 teleconverter at 700mm(cropped). And how does the rf 800mm compare to the RF 100-500mm with the 2x at 800mm. And perhaps the rf 800 with 1,4 at 1120 vs the 100-500 with 2x (cropped). And also auto-focus performance in the same focal lengths, on the R5.
I do have the R5 and am fully aware of diffraction etc.

I have seen the comparison at “The digital picture” but sometimes real life is a bit different.
I used the EF 100-400 II with converts on my R5 and know how, that one performs with teleconverters. I very rarely used the 2x converter because of the IQ loss but found the 1,4 acceptable. And according to “The digital picture” the rf 800mm is similar to the EF 100-400 II with 2x teleconverter at 800mm

--
https://theshire.zenfolio.com/

 

[CameraMews]

All I can say is that I recently sold the 800 because ultimately the images were softer than those I get with the 100-500. I do not use any extenders though. If I want more reach I put the 100-500 on the R7.

I don't know if I had a bad copy but I did the same - I found the 800 images very soft - even those taken in really good light.

 

[JackJonesPhoto]

All I can say is that I recently sold the 800 because ultimately the images were softer than those I get with the 100-500. I do not use any extenders though. If I want more reach I put the 100-500 on the R7.

I don't know if I had a bad copy but I did the same - I found the 800 images very soft - even those taken in really good light.

My experience is complete opposite, the 800mm F11 takes amazing pictures for me. I own both, (100-500, and 800), I love both, both are sharp, I would give the IQ edge to the 100-500, (richer colors/contrast, nicer bokeh), but sharpness I could not tell the difference, (not that I tried to find one either, just open the picture and its sharp so I move on with it). The 800mm is one of the best lens purchases I have ever made.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

All I can say is that I recently sold the 800 because ultimately the images were softer than those I get with the 100-500. I do not use any extenders though. If I want more reach I put the 100-500 on the R7.

I don't know if I had a bad copy but I did the same - I found the 800 images very soft - even those taken in really good light.

My experience is complete opposite, the 800mm F11 takes amazing pictures for me. I own both, (100-500, and 800), I love both, both are sharp, I would give the IQ edge to the 100-500, (richer colors/contrast, nicer bokeh), but sharpness I could not tell the difference, (not that I tried to find one either, just open the picture and its sharp so I move on with it). The 800mm is one of the best lens purchases I have ever made.

Yes, ya know, regardless of the kit I use to take the photo, I’m still going to put those RAW files through the same workflow. So for me to compare things like saturation or contrast, would almost be pointless, as if it needs more contrast, or more saturation, it’s going to get it before I’m finished anyway.
With most of my shots nowadays (90+%) that make it to being fully processed, and maybe posted on my Flickr page, they come out super sharp, or should I say, no Topaz needed. Once in a while, I’ll get one in which I just really like the aesthetics of the shot, but it was not as sharp as it could be. On those shots, never do I blame it on the lens. That is always just a bit of a fail on my part.
I think my 600 F11 is also very sharp…. Although I’ve only used it a couple times. Same with my RF 100-400. Both of those are like “just in case” lenses. The vast majority of my shooting is done with the 800 F11. LOVE this lens

 

[CameraMews]

All I can say is that I recently sold the 800 because ultimately the images were softer than those I get with the 100-500. I do not use any extenders though. If I want more reach I put the 100-500 on the R7.

I don't know if I had a bad copy but I did the same - I found the 800 images very soft - even those taken in really good light.

My experience is complete opposite, the 800mm F11 takes amazing pictures for me. I own both, (100-500, and 800), I love both, both are sharp, I would give the IQ edge to the 100-500, (richer colors/contrast, nicer bokeh), but sharpness I could not tell the difference, (not that I tried to find one either, just open the picture and its sharp so I move on with it). The 800mm is one of the best lens purchases I have ever made.

Yes, ya know, regardless of the kit I use to take the photo, I’m still going to put those RAW files through the same workflow. So for me to compare things like saturation or contrast, would almost be pointless, as if it needs more contrast, or more saturation, it’s going to get it before I’m finished anyway.
With most of my shots nowadays (90+%) that make it to being fully processed, and maybe posted on my Flickr page, they come out super sharp, or should I say, no Topaz needed. Once in a while, I’ll get one in which I just really like the aesthetics of the shot, but it was not as sharp as it could be. On those shots, never do I blame it on the lens. That is always just a bit of a fail on my part.
I think my 600 F11 is also very sharp…. Although I’ve only used it a couple times. Same with my RF 100-400. Both of those are like “just in case” lenses. The vast majority of my shooting is done with the 800 F11. LOVE this lens