Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM

[Levina de Ruijter]

Has anybody done a comparison with the RF 800/11?

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

Has anybody done a comparison with the RF 800/11?

There are a few youtube videos, I was out today with the 100-500 R7 and 1.4x, if the extender worked for the entire FL of the 100-500 it would be a no brainer go with the 100-500 but I miss the 100-300 range and weight.
On the 800 f/11 I had trouble getting BIF in the FOV can't zoom out and back in. I am still leaning towards getting the 200-800 to complement my 100-500 and RF 100-400

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Northroad]

I have a lot of respect for these guys and I think this was a good collaboration...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I have a lot of respect for these guys and I think this was a good collaboration...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Interesting. Will watch that later! Thanks for the link.

 

[roqdawg]

Canon R5 with RF200-800mm. 481mm, f/9, 1/2500 sec, ISO 800.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Canon R5 with RF200-800mm. 481mm, f/9, 1/2500 sec, ISO 800.View attachment 27275

Looks good, Thomas.

I see you also have the RF 800/11. Is there a big difference between the two lenses @800mm?

 

[roqdawg]

Looks good, Thomas.

I see you also have the RF 800/11. Is there a big difference between the two lenses @800mm?

Thay are actually pretty comparable at 800mm. The 800 f/11 can be frustrating with it's limitations but the light weight makes it enjoyable to shoot with. The RF200-800mm is much more versatile. That being said, if I was going out on a shoot where consistency and keeper rate was a primary concern, I would still take my 600mm f/4 and my 100-500mm 4.5-7.1. Ever since I went mirrorless I have gotten lazy and almost always use the animal eye detect autofocus. It has taken a lot of the work out of photographing birds, when it works, and I think these slower lenses are pushing the limits of reliable eye detect focus. I just now got a lens plate for the 200-800mm so next weekend I can mount it to a tripod, and maybe go back and see if spot focus increases the focus accuracy in some situations.

 

[jwcdds]

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Thay are actually pretty comparable at 800mm. The 800 f/11 can be frustrating with it's limitations but the light weight makes it enjoyable to shoot with. The RF200-800mm is much more versatile. That being said, if I was going out on a shoot where consistency and keeper rate was a primary concern, I would still take my 600mm f/4 and my 100-500mm 4.5-7.1. Ever since I went mirrorless I have gotten lazy and almost always use the animal eye detect autofocus. It has taken a lot of the work out of photographing birds, when it works, and I think these slower lenses are pushing the limits of reliable eye detect focus. I just now got a lens plate for the 200-800mm so next weekend I can mount it to a tripod, and maybe go back and see if spot focus increases the focus accuracy in some situations.

I find spot focus to be larger on my R6II than on the 1D4. Yesterday I was out for just a stroll in the park and the camera had difficulties focusing on the bird in a tree and kept focusing on the wrong things. Spot focus wasn’t helping much. This was with the 100-500mm.

My gear is humble, my fastest birding lens is the short EF 300/4L. It does focus really well on the R6II though, as it did on the R6 before. It’s just too short for songbirds.

 

[roqdawg]

I find spot focus to be larger on my R6II than on the 1D4. Yesterday I was out for just a stroll in the park and the camera had difficulties focusing on the bird in a tree and kept focusing on the wrong things. Spot focus wasn’t helping much. This was with the 100-500mm.

My gear is humble, my fastest birding lens is the short EF 300/4L. It does focus really well on the R6II though, as it did on the R6 before. It’s just too short for songbirds.

I only shoot on weekends and usually use the R7 + RF600mm f/4 combo (sometimes with 1.4x) for my backyard songbirds, so I still only have limited usage of the 200-800mm, and also the RF800mm f/11 for that matter, but so far I am finding the 200-800mm is better suited to the R5 than the R7, and works best when the subject is within a reasonable distance. The eye detect focus point may be a larger focusing spot on the R7 vs the R5 and I sometimes notice front or back focusing with the R7 + 200-800mm on low contrast birds if there are other things for the camera to focus on, even though the focus point is right on the birds eye (this would be the cameras fault, not the lens). Sometimes with the R7, the eye detect focus point would not even be on the bird at all. LOL (this is where I think the slow aperture f/9, f/11 starts to get the blame). Good results can be had with the R7, but the keeper rate may be lower. So the new question for me now is which combo delivers higher quality images: R5 + RF200-800mm, or R7 + RF100-500mm.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I only shoot on weekends and usually use the R7 + RF600mm f/4 combo (sometimes with 1.4x) for my backyard songbirds, so I still only have limited usage of the 200-800mm, and also the RF800mm f/11 for that matter, but so far I am finding the 200-800mm is better suited to the R5 than the R7, and works best when the subject is within a reasonable distance. The eye detect focus point may be a larger focusing spot on the R7 vs the R5 and I sometimes notice front or back focusing with the R7 + 200-800mm on low contrast birds if there are other things for the camera to focus on, even though the focus point is right on the birds eye (this would be the cameras fault, not the lens). Sometimes with the R7, the eye detect focus point would not even be on the bird at all. LOL (this is where I think the slow aperture f/9, f/11 starts to get the blame). Good results can be had with the R7, but the keeper rate may be lower. So the new question for me now is which combo delivers higher quality images: R5 + RF200-800mm, or R7 + RF100-500mm.

Interesting question. Could go either way. The R5 is the better camera, the RF100-500 bare is the better lens.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I only shoot on weekends and usually use the R7 + RF600mm f/4 combo (sometimes with 1.4x) for my backyard songbirds, so I still only have limited usage of the 200-800mm, and also the RF800mm f/11 for that matter, but so far I am finding the 200-800mm is better suited to the R5 than the R7, and works best when the subject is within a reasonable distance. The eye detect focus point may be a larger focusing spot on the R7 vs the R5 and I sometimes notice front or back focusing with the R7 + 200-800mm on low contrast birds if there are other things for the camera to focus on, even though the focus point is right on the birds eye (this would be the cameras fault, not the lens). Sometimes with the R7, the eye detect focus point would not even be on the bird at all. LOL (this is where I think the slow aperture f/9, f/11 starts to get the blame). Good results can be had with the R7, but the keeper rate may be lower. So the new question for me now is which combo delivers higher quality images: R5 + RF200-800mm, or R7 + RF100-500mm.

I am having too much time to think and ponder since I still haven't gotten the 200-800. I have the R7 and R6ii and the 100-500 & RF 100-400 and RF 1.4x.

I am not sure now whether to get the 200-800 or not.

I have used both the 100-500 and RF100-400 with the RF 1.4x, but don't like the 100-500 with it since you have to zoom to 300mm before putting it on and you don't have the full zoom range if you need it, however carrying two cameras, one with the 100-500 with RF 1.4x and the other with the RF100-400 can be the solution, the RF100-400 on either body is so light especially after holding the 100-500 it almost floats away. I don't want the 800/11 I would rather have a zoom and the 100-500 with 1.4x is faster and only 100mm shorter than the 800/11

What I am pondering is do I need the 200-800? Want it of course, but need it??

with the 100-500 and

R7 160-800 and with 1.4x 672-1200 with 200-800 320-1280 (and with 1.4x 448 -1792)

R6 100-500 and with 1.4x 420-700 with 200-800 & 1.4x 280-1120

I just don't know now...

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

I only shoot on weekends and usually use the R7 + RF600mm f/4 combo (sometimes with 1.4x) for my backyard songbirds, so I still only have limited usage of the 200-800mm, and also the RF800mm f/11 for that matter, but so far I am finding the 200-800mm is better suited to the R5 than the R7, and works best when the subject is within a reasonable distance. The eye detect focus point may be a larger focusing spot on the R7 vs the R5 and I sometimes notice front or back focusing with the R7 + 200-800mm on low contrast birds if there are other things for the camera to focus on, even though the focus point is right on the birds eye (this would be the cameras fault, not the lens). Sometimes with the R7, the eye detect focus point would not even be on the bird at all. LOL (this is where I think the slow aperture f/9, f/11 starts to get the blame). Good results can be had with the R7, but the keeper rate may be lower. So the new question for me now is which combo delivers higher quality images: R5 + RF200-800mm, or R7 + RF100-500mm.

Thank you for this assessment. For most birders, focal length is king so I think that the 200-800 would be a better fit - especially as bodies improve going forward. Some issues that you are experiencing with the R7 may be resolved with the next crop of crop bodies.

Do you have a feel for whether the IS performance is similar between the 2 lenses? Specifically the 200-800 at 800mm verses the 100-500mm with the 1.4x at 700mm.

 

[roqdawg]

Thank you for this assessment. For most birders, focal length is king so I think that the 200-800 would be a better fit - especially as bodies improve going forward. Some issues that you are experiencing with the R7 may be resolved with the next crop of crop bodies.

Do you have a feel for whether the IS performance is similar between the 2 lenses? Specifically the 200-800 at 800mm verses the 100-500mm with the 1.4x at 700mm.

I too think the next round of bodies will work better with this lens, may be that is why a lot of early testers used the R6II since it has a better AF than the rest of the pack. I tend to avoid tele-converters when I can but frequently use one on the 600 f/4 as it is still a quite usable without too much of an f-stop penalty. The IS seams to take longer to settle in on the 200-800mm and you don't have the 3 modes to choose from. When shooting the backyard songbirds, I use my R7 with 600mm L on a gimbal with IS mode 3 as it seems the lens nails more shots that way, as the IS is already running. I tested the 200-800mm with the R7 handheld so it is not exactly a fair fight. The R7 / 200-800mm combo can produce some fine images, but also leaves me scratching my head sometimes over shots that it should have nailed but didn't. I now have a lens plate for the 200-800 so next time I shoot with it I will use it on the gimbal and try both IS on and off to see if I am just shooting before the IS settles in, resulting in images that are out of focus sometimes. It's not like I have subjects that would just sit still for me. LOL. The 100-500mm has 3 IS modes so it wins in my book from the start and reliably nails shots for me on both the R5 and R7, but no I have not tried a direct comparison on the IS between these two lenses.

 

[roqdawg]

This image is with the R7 and RF200-800mm at 800mm, 1/640 sec, f/9, ISO 800. Final image was cropped to 6000 x 4000.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Sometimes with the R7, the eye detect focus point would not even be on the bird at all. LOL (this is where I think the slow aperture f/9, f/11 starts to get the blame).

I went for a stroll in the park two days ago. Took the R6II and the RF 100-500mm with me. Lots of tits and finches, all hopping in and out of trees, as they do. The camera had difficulty not so much locking onto the birds but finding them at all in the tree, surrounded by tree clutter.

After you posted your comment I decided to go out again today. It was the same day as Tuesday: a glorious winter day: cold, sunny, clear skies. I went back to the same location, at around the same time, but this time with the R6II and the old EF 300/4L lens, the fastest long(er) lens I have. To my surprise this combo did significantly better than the R6II with the RF 100-500mm. Shooting wide open at f/4 the camera just found the birdies easily, no matter how much tree clutter there was.

I then put on the EF 1.4xTC III and at f/5.6 the camera still performed really well, finding the birds easily.

So yes, it would seem that the faster the glass, the better, more accurate the AF. It makes a difference. Even with my old EF 300/4L. Something I had not expected.

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

I went for a stroll in the park two days ago. Took the R6II and the RF 100-500mm with me. Lots of tits and finches, all hopping in and out of trees, as they do. The camera had difficulty not so much locking onto the birds but finding them at all in the tree, surrounded by tree clutter.

After you posted your comment I decided to go out again today. It was the same day as Tuesday: a glorious winter day: cold, sunny, clear skies. I went back to the same location, at around the same time, but this time with the R6II and the old EF 300/4L lens, the fastest long(er) lens I have. To my surprise this combo did significantly better than the R6II with the RF 100-500mm. Shooting wide open at f/4 the camera just found the birdies easily, no matter how much tree clutter there was.

I then put on the EF 1.4xTC III and at f/5.6 the camera still performed really well, finding the birds easily.

So yes, it would seem that the faster the glass, the better, more accurate the AF. It makes a difference. Even with my old EF 300/4L. Something I had not expected.

I was hoping not to look backwards...
I just sold both my EF 300L and EF 500L f/4's very recently in expectation of buying newer/smaller/lighter RF glass. Yes, I was aware I would most likely miss having f/4

But I'm sure that Canon will continue to create smaller/lighter/faster lenses to take my money

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I was hoping not to look backwards...

I also got nice shots with the 100-500mm for sure, but it did struggle where the old EF 300/4L, even with the 1.4xTC III mounted did not.

But as you say, the fast RF lenses are no doubt coming...

 

[roqdawg]

I went for a stroll in the park two days ago. Took the R6II and the RF 100-500mm with me. Lots of tits and finches, all hopping in and out of trees, as they do. The camera had difficulty not so much locking onto the birds but finding them at all in the tree, surrounded by tree clutter.

After you posted your comment I decided to go out again today. It was the same day as Tuesday: a glorious winter day: cold, sunny, clear skies. I went back to the same location, at around the same time, but this time with the R6II and the old EF 300/4L lens, the fastest long(er) lens I have. To my surprise this combo did significantly better than the R6II with the RF 100-500mm. Shooting wide open at f/4 the camera just found the birdies easily, no matter how much tree clutter there was.

I then put on the EF 1.4xTC III and at f/5.6 the camera still performed really well, finding the birds easily.

So yes, it would seem that the faster the glass, the better, more accurate the AF. It makes a difference. Even with my old EF 300/4L. Something I had not expected.

Yes, the faster glass makes all the difference. Even if you are not shooting wide open, the initial focus will be better because the sensor will receive more light from the larger aperture to focus with, and the lens will stop down to selected aperture when you press the shutter.

 

[dj63401]

I just now got a lens plate for the 200-800mm so next weekend I can mount it to a tripod, and maybe go back and see if spot focus increases the focus accuracy in some situations.

Which plate did you get, and initial thoughts?