I finally pulled the trigger on the Canon R7 and man this thing is fast, I'm honestly vibrating with excitement because I have a trip to Yellowstone coming up in about three weeks and I need to get my lens situation sorted out like yesterday. I’ve been scouring YouTube and every single forum thread I can find but I’m just getting more and more conflicted the more I read. I really want to stick to native RF glass because I don't want to mess around with adapters if I can help it, I've heard the EF-RF adapter is fine but I'd rather just have something built for the system.

I've been looking at two main options but they both have these weird trade-offs that are making my head spin. First is the RF 100-500mm L. People say it's the gold standard for this sensor but it's super expensive and I'm worried 500mm isn't quite enough reach for smaller birds or wolves at a distance even with the crop factor. Then there's that new RF 200-800mm which seems perfect for the reach but I keep reading that it’s dark because of the f/9 aperture at the long end and since I'm mostly gonna be shooting at dawn or dusk when the animals are actually active I'm scared my ISO is gonna be through the roof and make everything look like mush.

Here is what I am looking for:

• Budget: Trying to stay under $2500 but if the 100-500 is truly life-changing I might sell some old gear to make it happen
• Use case: Mostly bears, elk, and maybe some raptors if I get lucky
• Portability: I'm gonna be hiking a lot so I don't want a lens that feels like a literal boat anchor on my shoulder all day
• Performance: Needs to keep up with the R7's crazy autofocus speed without hunting too much

Is the 100-500 really worth that extra cash for the image quality or should I just get the 200-800 and buy a beefy tripod to deal with the slow aperture? Or am I totally overlooking something like the 800mm prime which seems cool but maybe too restrictive? I just want the sharpest shots possible for my first big trip since I usually just shoot backyard squirrels...