Hi everyone!
I'm planning to buy a Canon EOS R7 with the RF-S 18-150mm kit lens, and I'm trying to decide which telephoto lens would be the best investment for my main hobby: aircraft photography and planespotting.
My two main options are the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM and the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM.
I've found the RF 200-800mm for around €1,400, while the RF 100-500mm L costs considerably more, often over €2,000. That's a substantial difference in price, and I'm wondering whether the L lens really justifies spending so much more.
The biggest advantage of the 200-800mm is obviously its reach. On the EOS R7's APS-C sensor, its field of view is equivalent to approximately 320-1280mm on a full-frame camera. With the 100-500mm, the equivalent field of view is approximately 160-800mm.
I mainly photograph aircraft, including planes that are relatively far away, so the extra reach could make a significant difference. With the 100-500mm, I'd sometimes need to crop my images quite heavily, even with the R7's 32.5 MP sensor.
However, I know the 100-500mm L has an excellent reputation for sharpness, autofocus performance and overall optical quality. It's also brighter than the 200-800mm at comparable focal lengths. I'm concerned about how the 200-800mm performs at 800mm and f/9, particularly on cloudy days, during sunrise or sunset, and whenever the light isn't ideal.
On the other hand, I don't want to spend hundreds of euros extra on the 100-500mm just for a modest improvement in image quality if the 200-800mm already produces excellent results. I'd rather invest that money elsewhere in my photography setup if the difference isn't significant enough.
I'll also have the RF-S 18-150mm kit lens, so I won't need the telephoto to cover general photography or wider focal lengths.
My questions are:
How significant is the real-world sharpness difference between these two lenses on the EOS R7, especially when photographing aircraft?
Does the RF 200-800mm remain sufficiently sharp at 600-800mm to take advantage of the R7's 32.5 MP sensor?
How much detail would I realistically lose by shooting at 500mm with the 100-500mm and cropping compared with shooting at 800mm with the 200-800mm?
Is the 100-500mm's better maximum aperture a major advantage in real-world planespotting, particularly on cloudy days or in low light?
Is the RF 100-500mm L worth paying €600 or more extra for, considering that I would lose 300mm of maximum focal length?
Would the 200-800mm be the better long-term investment for someone who prioritises reach and detailed photographs of distant aircraft?
If you owned an EOS R7 and already had an 18-150mm lens for general photography, which of these two telephotos would you buy?
I'm not simply looking for the lens with the best optical quality on paper. I want the most sensible combination of reach, sharpness, autofocus, low-light performance and price.
My main concern is spending over €2,000 on the 100-500mm L when I could get the 200-800mm for around €1,400. I don't want to regret losing the extra reach, but I also don't want to sacrifice too much image quality just to get to 800mm.
I'd particularly appreciate feedback from people who have used either lens on the EOS R7 for real-world aircraft photography.