The R7 and 100-500mm is the best combo for my needs personally. You get 160-800mm for songbirds and 0.52x magnification for bees and butterflies, all in a highly portable package. Big win. I find the R7 + 100-500mm combo overall a bit sharper and more consistent than the R5 + 200-800mm; the autofocus on the 100-500mm blows the 200-800mm out of the water in terms of accuracy and hit rate. That’s actually been my biggest complaint with it so far: the autofocus is just too inconsistent.

What a comprehensive review! Well done.

I have the 200-800 and was one of the first in the UK to get one so I have used it since it's release in the UK. I shoot full frame R5, and R6.I tried out the 100-500mm before the release of the 200-800 as I was frantic for a Canon lens that was a reasonable price range for bird photography. For bird photography it simply didn't have the reach, the big thing as well people say use the teleconvertor for the extra reach, hate them but on top of that the lens can only zoom back to 300mm using the 100-500mm so if something comes close you don't have the advantage of a shorter zoom at all without having to remove it. If I did use a teleconvertor with the 800mm the issue does not exist you can use the full range of zoom available. Having the extra reach of 300mm is massive. As for those shooting insects, dragonflies and the like, OK the 100 to 500mm is the better choice. However think of the cost of the lens, heres what I done I purchased an OM-1 Mk2 camera with a 400mm Mk2 lens (800mm eqiv.) It's much better suited for macro work and the combination cost less that buying the 100-500mm lens, plus it's lighter to work with by a mile. No need to be loyal to one camera brand in this case.

Thanks for that. Great review and I appreciate that you brought in a comment review that really adds to to it. I've had both lenses than 100 to 500 on the R5 and now the 200 800 on the R5–2. And quite frankly the 200 to 800 lives on my R5 two and that is what I use. I'm a bit of a hoarder so I haven't gotten rid of the earlier kit. But I really use the 200 to 800 all the time. I find the ability to zoom in and zoom out gives you such flexibility. And 800 is really good for small birds. The other thing is when you zoom back again and you gain a stop of light. So just thinking about the 100 to 500 with a 1.4X and you lose a stop. My only issue is the close focus range of the 100 500 makes it better for insects. But you can zoom back on the 200 800 and get those insects too. Finally, there's a little bit of softness just use a little bit of post processing sharpening in topaz, etc. The technologies there why not use it?

I really enjoy your videos.
Earlier this year I spent a month traveling in the Philippines and got out for nature photos almost every day. I carried a dedicated macro setup for mostly insects and spiders. I also carried the Canon R8/ 200-800 for reptiles,  birds and butterflies.
I very rarely used the macro setup. Yes minimum focus at 800mm is a bit far but between 250-400 it is just over 1 meter. I was getting nice shots of jumping spiders and leafhoppers on the 200-800mm.

Nice one, mate, enjoying your vlogs and subscribed. Personally, I opted for the 1-500 (to use with an R6) for one primary reason - I'm an old git with dodgy knees etc and the size/weight difference matters more than any of the techno mumbo-jumbo, half of which I don't understand anyway.  It's a pain with the 1.4x tc as that will only work in the 300-500 range so it's not an everyday option. Just as a matter of interest, a perhaps surprisingly good combo (at least for me) is the ef 100-400 II with 1.4 III on the R7, giving 900mm at f8 (I think). IS mode 3, by the way, is the same as Mode 2 but only at the point of pressing the shutter button, therefore preventing the IS struggling when following erratic moving subjects. Or something like that... All the best. Edit: should mention I hardly ever shoot video.

Have the 100-500 bought the 200-800 kept both you need both 800 reach had to match unless you crop in camera

I looked really hard at the R7, but decided that I would finally say screw it and found an open box R6ii with the kit lens for almost the same price. (Couple hundred more.) Yeah, the 1-5 is an amazing lens. It's on my one day wish list. But I'm going to get the 2-8 first, because it seems every time I'm out I need more reach than less. With a TC on, you lose the aperture advantage from the L lens. So, full frame, for me, the 2-8 would probably be one I would use more, even if I had both.

I almost bought the R7 for the battery and stabilizer, but then I check the reviews regarding the focus problem and that makes me choose the R8 instead. I'd rather have spare batteries and let the lens do the stabilizer than 7/10 out of focus shot. Now im waiting for 200-800 and excited to try it out. I wish they fixed it on R7 mark ii

Thanks for the review. I've been using R7 & 200-800 for a year now too. I think it's a good option for video. For photos, of course, the lens and R7 have their shortcomings. My friend used R6 and R5 mark II with 200-800 lens and got better photos and no noise even in crop mode. However, I'm not going to sell the R7, but I also want to buy full frame camera.

Great review, thanks so much.  The various canon options (combinations of body/lens)…trying to find the optimum combo for wildlife (mainly birding)….are always going through my mind too.  That’s the good ole Canon product differentiation business plan at work:).   Canon is excellent at this:)

With respect to birding only: The optimal combination of body/lens does not exist in my mind but would be:  An R7II that addresses the issues of the current R7 (loud/clunky mechanical shutter, focus inconsistency, sensor read out speed and rolling shutter).  This paired with the 200/800 would be an ideal combo in my mind.  The issues with the current R7 are what’s kept me away from going in that direction.

So, at the moment, it’s full-frame for me.  With FF, I need at a minimum 800mm for birding, and that’s not enough for smaller birds.  

The 100-500L + 1.4 tele converter seems less than ideal for birding to me.  Plus, the expense of that lens combined with the slow aperture….I just can’t wrap my mind around.  So, a no-go for me.  

So, that leaves me with the following options (in Canon’s RF lineup): 200-800….or….the 800 f/11 prime.  I had the 200-800 on my list and ready to purchase…but it was unavailable for months after its release.  In the meantime, Canon ran one of its massive sales on their refurbished site and I was able to buy the 800 f/11 for $499.  Instant purchase!

For my current style of birding (long walks carrying my camera), the 800 is ideal.  Yes, it’s a bit of a one trick pony being a prime and having a small aperture (e.g., need full sun), but it works for me.  It’s extremely light, extremely sharp and focus is fast and accurate.  

So, for my current birding setup:  It’s the R6II and the 800 F/11.  For small birds, this means heavy cropping.  The files hold up well, but are greatly reduced in mp’s.  So, I’m considering upgrading to the massively expensive R5II for the additional  cropping latitude.  

However, I’m still hopeful that an updated R7II will be launched.  But, knowing Canon and their excellent product differentiation business strategy (e.g., to protect their flagships), I’m not expecting it any time soon (if ever).

Brilliant video, when the time comes 200-800 it is for the reasons you give it need the reach..!!!

In the dslr age I was a canon user (90d +400mm f5.6). Last autumn I upgraded. The story's of the horrible rolling shutter on the r7 and the issues with autofocus together with the fact that the r7 can't shoot 4k in 120fps made me decide to turn to sony for the A6700 and the 200-600mm lens. Seeing your results there are definitely rolling shutter issues, but I only see it in your photo's and don't notice it in your videos so after all it wouldn't be a problem. Also I've noticed that most of the time you film without a tripod and the footage isn't that shaky at all despite the mm's. I think your setup had better stabilization than the sony, but it could also be you are only showing the best shots ;)
The maximum amount of mm I can get is 1450 (600x1,5 for apsc on sony and another 1,5 for the 4kcrop). I use a 2x teleconvertor to get to 2900, although you do notice the footage is a bit soft. luckily there is a prety good fix for it in my editing software.
What I do love in my setup is the internal zoom. It is both very fast and doesn't change the balance of the lens so I can get shots I would otherwise never get and that is the most important thing for me. When there is a mega rare bird in the Netherlands I need to get the shot so sacrificing a bit of mm for the very fast zooming, the bird-eye detect autofocus (which only works great if the bird is large enough in the frame btw) and the 4k 120fps I still think I have the best option for myself, but before upgrading I thought the r7 with the 200-800 would perform worse than what you are capable of doing with it.  

BTW can you charge your camera via the car charger?

We all need different things, and like you, the extra length of the 800 is what I'd want over anything else first. I bought an 800 prime for my z8, I absolutely love it. I still have my 180-600, and I did need that for photographing the gannets. But the 800 is pretty much my full time lens now. It's all tools for the job. We can take what we need. It's all subjective. I don't know why people spend hours arguing over stuff like this. We all want different things from our cameras and I'm glad we get to choose our tools to work with.

I own both of the lenses, I also own a full frame body. The 200-800 and 100-500, 100-500 is a fantasticly sharp and lightweight and relatively small lens to carry around and way easier to travel with. It's just too convenient if you don't plan to add a teleconverter. And it's much better for macro. It's just an inconvenience to not being able to fully retract the lens with the teleconverter. And 500 is sometimes too short especially on a full frame and I find 200-800 native resolution a little better than the 100-500 with 1.4x tc. And it also takes the 1.4x extender really well during good daylight reaching 1120mm. And for 4k fine video footage, rf 200-800+1.4x extender combo is generally plenty sharp. Can't reach that far with the 100-500.

I have both, & the 100-500 is noticeably sharper. I find myself using that one much more than the 200-800

Fully agree! The cost is rarely discussed enough...there is an expectation that everybody has $10K to start with. I sure don't! The $2K (CAD) for the R7 was the absolute most I could do. I went out of my comfort budget to jump a level above the R10. A year later, I had to do an interest free loan to buy the 200-800 lens which was $3K CAD. There is no chance I can spend over $4K on the 100-500 and wish I had 800mm all the time! Good summary.

I have the r7 with the 2-8 and will be sticking with it because of the reach like yourself. I also have ef1-4 with the rf connector so if I ever go to a paid hide I use that.

One of the best videos.🎉

R7 plus 200-800 is a brilliant combination! I believe people claiming it is ‘soft’ at the long end are not considering atmospheric pollution like heat haze, dust and smoke! I find for BIF shooting with R7, I get many more sharp images if I take several short bursts as opposed to one long burst..