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

[Dennis]

Here is a non-rigorous comparison between the Canon RF 200-800mm and the Canon RF600mm F4L with RF Extender x1.4, 840mm.

Both photos were taken with the Canon EOS R3 from our back garden, although some 12 months apart.

From memory, the birds were at a similar distance.

This Post shows the RAW SOC shots, full res crops at 1600x1600 pixels.

Dennis

Canon EOS R3, Canon RF600mm F4L with RF Extender x1.4, 840mm, ISO800, 1/500, F9



Canon EOS R3, Canon RF 200-800mm, 800mm, ISO800, 1/640, F16

 

[Dennis]

This Post, (Post #2) shows the processed versions. Although they were processed some 12 months apart, I used my standard workflow so they have been through the same process.

Dennis

Canon EOS R3, Canon RF600mm F4L with RF Extender x1.4, 840mm, ISO800, 1/500, F9



Canon EOS R3, Canon RF 200-800mm, 800mm, ISO800, 1/640, F16

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Here is a non-rigorous comparison between the Canon RF 200-800mm and the Canon RF600mm F4L with RF Extender x1.4, 840mm.

Both photos were taken with the Canon EOS R3 from our back garden, although some 12 months apart.

From memory, the birds were at a similar distance.

This Post shows the RAW SOC shots, full res crops at 1600x1600 pixels.

Dennis

Canon EOS R3, Canon RF600mm F4L with RF Extender x1.4, 840mm, ISO800, 1/500, F9
View attachment 21647


Canon EOS R3, Canon RF 200-800mm, 800mm, ISO800, 1/640, F16
View attachment 21648

Nice, Dennis.

The shot with the 600/4+1.4xTC looks better, both before and after processing.

Light was quite different between the two shots though. Nice, soft light for the 600/4 vs harsher, more contrasty light. Also f/9 for the 600/4 vs f/16, so better bokeh.

But considering the difference in light and aperture, not to mention the $ 8000, those aren’t bad results.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

The 600mm looks better, NOW who will sell me one for $1,899?

It is sort of like a Lamborghini or Ferrari will out pace my Jeep but where can I get one for the price of the used Jeep? ROFL

I think I had mentioned that I picked up a RF 100-500 at the Canon Refurb sale ($1,899) and have gone to the pond the last 2 days, most ponds up here that are ice free have no birds or maybe 2 an hour, I know of one in Brockton MA where people feed the birds so there are a couple hundred Ring-Billed Gulls, dozen of ducks and many Canada Geese, also a family of 7 Mute Swans. I shot at 1/3200 with my R6ii and R7 (using the R7 mimics but is slightly longer than using the RF 1.4x on the R6ii 800mm vs 700mm). I then switched to the RF 1.4x on the R7 and shot a few more bursts.

The limit on the 100-500mm to 300-500 is very limiting. The following story is what happened but what could also have happened as I was leaving.

It was time to leave the pond, I was getting cold even wearing my hunting pants and Arctic Parka and I had told the wife I would be home about noon. I took the RF1.4x off the lens and the lens back on the R7 and then put them all in my camera bag.
As I was getting into the Jeep I heard a thunderous flapping, the 7 swans had taken off and were flying across my FOV up the lake. DRAT the camera was in the bag in the back.
BUT had I still been sitting at the back of the jeep I would have had the RF 1.4x on and unable to zoom back past 420mm, looking at the line of swans I could have gotten 3 or 4 in the FOV but not all 7! With the 200-800 getting them all in at 200 would have been easy.

Situations like this are not uncommon, flocks of geese, ducks or even swans flying past or landing. It is for these situations that I am still seriously considering the 200-800!

 

[jwcdds]

Yay... I might/should be getting this lens soon. *fingers crossed*

 

[PinholeR5]

So, back on the R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm comparison. I made the following table:





It doesn't cover everything, but the lines highlighted in red are the main reason I think this is an interesting comparison. There are a lot of comparisons of the 200-800mm vs 100-500mm + 1.4TC. While very interesting and pertinent, it compares two price points. Also, the annoying zoom restriction of the 100-500 with TC comes into play.

With the R7 + 100-500mm there is no zoom restriction. Quite the contrary, it zooms out wider than the 200-800mm, i.e., to 160mm FF equivalent. Also, the zoom ring has a smaller throw that is easier to handle.

After spending some time with both combos, I'd give the edge on IQ to the R6 II + 200-800mm, but not by much. The MFD advantage for the 100-500mm is big, so there is much more versatility in that regard as well. The weight and size advantage of the R7 + 100-500mm are also large.

Someone who has the R6 II and the 100-500mm, can ask the question: What is better, add a 200-800mm or get an R7? Getting the R7 is cheaper, the resulting combo is more versatile, the weight and portability better! IQ is close, IMHO, but I'd give the edge to the R6 II + 200-800mm for my use so far. The difference after noise reduction is even smaller, but I think the R6 II + 200-800mm has better background blurring. Here are links to a couple of albums

[I want to point out that Amazon Photos by default orders images from newest to oldest in albums. You should switch to oldest to newest. Once it is ordered from newest to oldest, then in the albums are ordered such that each pair of images is first the R6 II + 200-800mm and then the R7 + 100-500mm. (except for the last one where I didn't bother fiddling with the timestamps to get the order I wanted as I didn't want to make changes to the original .CR3)]

R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Topaz NR (Auto): R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

And, for those who like to play around with CRAW files, here is an album of .CR3 files. Please note that the two camera bodies had out of sync clocks This means it takes some care to line the images up in LRC. Also, Amazon Photos does some weird rendering of the embedded jpegs for .CR3 files, so this album is only useful to download the .CR3s

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

So, back on the R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm comparison. I made the following table:
View attachment 23989


It doesn't cover everything, but the lines highlighted in red are the main reason I think this is an interesting comparison. There are a lot of comparisons of the 200-800mm vs 100-500mm + 1.4TC. While very interesting and pertinent, it compares two price points. Also, the annoying zoom restriction of the 100-500 with TC comes into play.

With the R7 + 100-500mm there is no zoom restriction. Quite the contrary, it zooms out wider than the 200-800mm, i.e., to 160mm FF equivalent. Also, the zoom ring has a smaller throw that is easier to handle.

After spending some time with both combos, I'd give the edge on IQ to the R6 II + 200-800mm, but not by much. The MFD advantage for the 100-500mm is big, so there is much more versatility in that regard as well. The weight and size advantage of the R7 + 100-500mm are also large.

For someone who has the R6 II and the 100-500mm, can ask the question: What is better, add a 200-800mm or get an R7? Getting the R7 is cheaper, the resulting combo is more versatile, the weight and portability better! IQ is close, IMHO, but I'd give the edge to the R6 II + 200-800mm for my use so far. The difference after noise reduction is even smaller, but I think the R6 II + 200-800mm has better background blurring. Here are links to a couple of albums

R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Topaz NR (Auto): R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

And, for those who like to play around with CRAW files, here is an album of .CR3 files. Please note that the two camera bodies had out of sync clocks This means it takes some care to line the images up in LRC. Also, Amazon Photos does some weird rendering of the embedded jpegs for .CR3 files, so this album is only useful to download the .CR3s

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Terrific comparison and write up, Pin. Thanks very much for that. My thinking cap is on.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I have both the R7 and R6ii and a RF 1.4x and recently picked up a RF 100-500 ($1,899 direct from Canon as a refurb, haven't seen that price since last weekend).

I have the 200-800 on order (I am #1 with Hunts in Providence, but they say they haven't gotten any yet) Hunts has a 30 day no reason needed return policy on lenses so if I get it before I go for knee surgery April 22nd I will be able to do a direct comparison myself.

I took the 100-500 with both cameras and the 1.4x to my best birding pond, tons of birds all the time to test out what I thought. My #1 issue is the restriction on the zoom range, 300-500 only. For BIF at least for me the problem of zooming wide is a real issue. The other day I was shooting with the R6ii and 1.4x and a family of 7 swans flew up the lake there was no way I could get all 7 in the FOV. When I am shooting at the longest zoom groups of birds will often show up suddenly nearby. That is a real issue as I cannot switch out the 1.4x in 3 seconds. If I was carrying 2 setups I could maybe have grabbed the other camera to get the shot, but due to my knees I don't stand to shoot what I often do but unfortunately not all the time is to have one camera with the 100-500 and the other with my EF 100-400Lii or RF 100-400 on my bag next to my chair so I can grab it quick, of course I was there for only half an hour so didn't do that, that will teach me.

Before I get into the 100-500 again, I have to say that the RF 100-400 does a very good job even with the 1.4x and even the 2.0X that I rented, of course it becomes very slow especially for the R7, but I was impressed with the images.

All the points that PinholeR5 said are true about the 100-500. It is a great lens with snappy AF and I like the manual focus ring and its positioning. The R6ii with 1.4 is light challenged but the R6ii can handle it the same set up with the R7 and 1.4x works well especially for reach but the R7 is a bit more challenged in low light or high f stop. The R7 and 100-500 makes a very good combo.

In my thinking over a pot of coffee I am wondering whether having the 100-500 with my cameras (R7, R6ii, RF 1.4x) is as good as the 200-800 with the same cameras? Again the real issue to me is the zoom starting at 300mm.

I will try over the next few days to add text to some images and post them to an album on Flickr along with images from the 200-800 if I ever get them, so I can refer to it and direct people to the finished images.

 

[Still Grinning]

So, back on the R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm comparison. I made the following table:
View attachment 23989


It doesn't cover everything, but the lines highlighted in red are the main reason I think this is an interesting comparison. There are a lot of comparisons of the 200-800mm vs 100-500mm + 1.4TC. While very interesting and pertinent, it compares two price points. Also, the annoying zoom restriction of the 100-500 with TC comes into play.

With the R7 + 100-500mm there is no zoom restriction. Quite the contrary, it zooms out wider than the 200-800mm, i.e., to 160mm FF equivalent. Also, the zoom ring has a smaller throw that is easier to handle.

After spending some time with both combos, I'd give the edge on IQ to the R6 II + 200-800mm, but not by much. The MFD advantage for the 100-500mm is big, so there is much more versatility in that regard as well. The weight and size advantage of the R7 + 100-500mm are also large.

For someone who has the R6 II and the 100-500mm, can ask the question: What is better, add a 200-800mm or get an R7? Getting the R7 is cheaper, the resulting combo is more versatile, the weight and portability better! IQ is close, IMHO, but I'd give the edge to the R6 II + 200-800mm for my use so far. The difference after noise reduction is even smaller, but I think the R6 II + 200-800mm has better background blurring. Here are links to a couple of albums

R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Topaz NR (Auto): R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

And, for those who like to play around with CRAW files, here is an album of .CR3 files. Please note that the two camera bodies had out of sync clocks This means it takes some care to line the images up in LRC. Also, Amazon Photos does some weird rendering of the embedded jpegs for .CR3 files, so this album is only useful to download the .CR3s

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

That is a very interesting comparison! I'm still waiting to get a mirrorless APS-C to go with my R5, much as I had with my previous 5D4 and 7D2. As soon as they bring out an R7ii with identical / similar controls to the R5 that will be the solution that works best for me! Cheaper to achieve than a 200-800, with a better range, lighter weight and probably good enough IQ.

As an aside, in the UK the (current) R7 is substantially cheaper than the 200-800 (by about £900), which seems at odds with your figures in the US. I already have the 100-500 (& a 1.4x), and an 800 f11, so an R7ii could be exactly the answer I am looking for (I could trade the 800 in then too)!

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

That is a very interesting comparison! I'm still waiting to get a mirrorless APS-C to go with my R5, much as I had with my previous 5D4 and 7D2. As soon as they bring out an R7ii with identical / similar controls to the R5 that will be the solution that works best for me! Cheaper to achieve than a 200-800, with a better range, lighter weight and probably good enough IQ.

As an aside, in the UK the (current) R7 is substantially cheaper than the 200-800 (by about £900), which seems at odds with your figures in the US. I already have the 100-500 (& a 1.4x), and an 800 f11, so an R7ii could be exactly the answer I am looking for (I could trade the 800 in then too)!

I have an R7 but hope for a R7ii with battery grip and similar controls to the R6ii, but I think it will be a couple years yet...

 

[ct1co2]

So, back on the R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm comparison. I made the following table:
View attachment 23989


It doesn't cover everything, but the lines highlighted in red are the main reason I think this is an interesting comparison. There are a lot of comparisons of the 200-800mm vs 100-500mm + 1.4TC. While very interesting and pertinent, it compares two price points. Also, the annoying zoom restriction of the 100-500 with TC comes into play.

With the R7 + 100-500mm there is no zoom restriction. Quite the contrary, it zooms out wider than the 200-800mm, i.e., to 160mm FF equivalent. Also, the zoom ring has a smaller throw that is easier to handle.

After spending some time with both combos, I'd give the edge on IQ to the R6 II + 200-800mm, but not by much. The MFD advantage for the 100-500mm is big, so there is much more versatility in that regard as well. The weight and size advantage of the R7 + 100-500mm are also large.

For someone who has the R6 II and the 100-500mm, can ask the question: What is better, add a 200-800mm or get an R7? Getting the R7 is cheaper, the resulting combo is more versatile, the weight and portability better! IQ is close, IMHO, but I'd give the edge to the R6 II + 200-800mm for my use so far. The difference after noise reduction is even smaller, but I think the R6 II + 200-800mm has better background blurring. Here are links to a couple of albums

R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Topaz NR (Auto): R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

And, for those who like to play around with CRAW files, here is an album of .CR3 files. Please note that the two camera bodies had out of sync clocks This means it takes some care to line the images up in LRC. Also, Amazon Photos does some weird rendering of the embedded jpegs for .CR3 files, so this album is only useful to download the .CR3s

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Very interesting comparison, thanks for doing that! Getting all the quantitative data into a chart is visually really useful, and then can leave each person to weigh how much, or little, the non-quantitative elements of the R7 vs R6II (or R5/R6) contribute to making a decision.

 

[PinholeR5]

That is a very interesting comparison! I'm still waiting to get a mirrorless APS-C to go with my R5, much as I had with my previous 5D4 and 7D2. As soon as they bring out an R7ii with identical / similar controls to the R5 that will be the solution that works best for me! Cheaper to achieve than a 200-800, with a better range, lighter weight and probably good enough IQ.

As an aside, in the UK the (current) R7 is substantially cheaper than the 200-800 (by about £900), which seems at odds with your figures in the US. I already have the 100-500 (& a 1.4x), and an 800 f11, so an R7ii could be exactly the answer I am looking for (I could trade the 800 in then too)!

I was going to make a comment about that and forgot. Making comments on current pricing will always be hard as those fluctuate a lot and vary widely be geographical location. MSRP is a starting point for comparison.

Here in the US, the R7 is cheaper than the original MSRP. Right now, on the Canon USA site, the R7 is $1399. On the refurbished site it is $1119. The RF 100-500mm is also cheaper than MSRP at $2599, while the refurbished is at $2339 (was at the insane price of $1899 for a bit). The R6 II is also cheaper at $2299, with the refurbished at $2019. The used market is also a good option for R7 & RF 100-500mm. The R6 II isn't quite as common but can be found.

Only the RF 200-800mm is at MSRP for the lucky few (Yep, I'm one of the lucky ones). For most, it is still unobtainium.

 

[Jan1977]

I was going to make a comment about that and forgot. Making comments on current pricing will always be hard as those fluctuate a lot and vary widely be geographical location. MSRP is a starting point for comparison.

Here in the US, the R7 is cheaper than the original MSRP. Right now, on the Canon USA site, the R7 is $1399. On the refurbished site it is $1119. The RF 100-500mm is also cheaper than MSRP at $2599, while the refurbished is at $2339 (was at the insane price of $1899 for a bit). The R6 II is also cheaper at $2299, with the refurbished at $2019. The used market is also a good option for R7 & RF 100-500mm. The R6 II isn't quite as common but can be found.

Only the RF 200-800mm is at MSRP for the lucky few (Yep, I'm one of the lucky ones). For most, it is still unobtainium.

Thanks for the effort you put in here to help others at this forum. I do think your table is incorrect, which might lead to some misconception.

Based on my view on the product placement of lenses and bodies, my guess is that the price for the R7 + 100-500 combo are switched in row 1 & 2. A $1000 cheaper RF 100-500 than an RF 200-800 does not make much sense and neither does it make sense the R7 would be $1000 more expensive than an R6 II . For the price of the combo and therewith for the rest of the comparison it would not make much of a difference. Just wanted to point in out to prevent discussions on prices too much.
If the prices as given in your table are correct, than never mind.

 

[PinholeR5]

Thanks for the effort you put in here to help others at this forum. I do think your table is incorrect, which might lead to some misconception.

Based on my view on the product placement of lenses and bodies, my guess is that the price for the R7 + 100-500 combo are switched in row 1 & 2. A $1000 cheaper RF 100-500 than an RF 200-800 does not make much sense and neither does it make sense the R7 would be $1000 more expensive than an R6 II . For the price of the combo and therewith for the rest of the comparison it would not make much of a difference. Just wanted to point in out to prevent discussions on prices too much.
If the prices as given in your table are correct, than never mind.

Thanks for catching this!

Yes, indeed the MSRP Body and Lens rows were swapped. I was able to update the original post.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I uploaded my R7 and R6 images with 100-400 and 100-500 and when I test/get the 200-800 I will add to the album. Do I need/want the 200-800...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmpadell/albums/72177720313912136/with/53451175647

 

[Lester Wareham]

So, back on the R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm comparison. I made the following table:


View attachment 24309


It doesn't cover everything, but the lines highlighted in red are the main reason I think this is an interesting comparison. There are a lot of comparisons of the 200-800mm vs 100-500mm + 1.4TC. While very interesting and pertinent, it compares two price points. Also, the annoying zoom restriction of the 100-500 with TC comes into play.

With the R7 + 100-500mm there is no zoom restriction. Quite the contrary, it zooms out wider than the 200-800mm, i.e., to 160mm FF equivalent. Also, the zoom ring has a smaller throw that is easier to handle.

After spending some time with both combos, I'd give the edge on IQ to the R6 II + 200-800mm, but not by much. The MFD advantage for the 100-500mm is big, so there is much more versatility in that regard as well. The weight and size advantage of the R7 + 100-500mm are also large.

Someone who has the R6 II and the 100-500mm, can ask the question: What is better, add a 200-800mm or get an R7? Getting the R7 is cheaper, the resulting combo is more versatile, the weight and portability better! IQ is close, IMHO, but I'd give the edge to the R6 II + 200-800mm for my use so far. The difference after noise reduction is even smaller, but I think the R6 II + 200-800mm has better background blurring. Here are links to a couple of albums

[I want to point out that Amazon Photos by default orders images from newest to oldest in albums. You should switch to oldest to newest. Once it is ordered from newest to oldest, then in the albums are ordered such that each pair of images is first the R6 II + 200-800mm and then the R7 + 100-500mm. (except for the last one where I didn't bother fiddling with the timestamps to get the order I wanted as I didn't want to make changes to the original .CR3)]

R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

Topaz NR (Auto): R6 II + 200-800mm vs R7 + 100-500mm

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

And, for those who like to play around with CRAW files, here is an album of .CR3 files. Please note that the two camera bodies had out of sync clocks This means it takes some care to line the images up in LRC. Also, Amazon Photos does some weird rendering of the embedded jpegs for .CR3 files, so this album is only useful to download the .CR3s

Jorge shared 42 photos with you

www.amazon.com

What's the difference in max magnification Vs focal length?

One of the big pluses for with the 100-500 is the flexibility with the larger insects and general photography.

 

[PinholeR5]

What's the difference in max magnification Vs focal length?

One of the big pluses for with the 100-500 is the flexibility with the larger insects and general photography.

I'm not really sure what the max magnification vs focal length profiles are for the two lenses. I know the max magnification for the RF 100-500mm is 0.33x @500mm and that the max magnification for the RF 200-800mm is 0.25x @200mm.

For the two combos discussed, I tried to focus as close as I could with both lenses fully extended (i.e., at 800mm FF Equiv.) and got the following images that show the comparison:

R6 II + 200-800mm @800mm





R7 + 100-500mm @500mm





It is a big difference, but I didn't try to use the 200mm focal length on the R6 II + 200-800mm, where it would have a larger magnification.

 

[Lester Wareham]

YouI'm not really sure what the max magnification vs focal length profiles are for the two lenses. I know the max magnification for the RF 100-500mm is 0.33x @500mm and that the max magnification for the RF 200-800mm is 0.25x @200mm.

For the two combos discussed, I tried to focus as close as I could with both lenses fully extended (i.e., at 800mm FF Equiv.) and got the following images that show the comparison:

R6 II + 200-800mm @800mm

View attachment 24698



R7 + 100-500mm @500mm

View attachment 24699



It is a big difference, but I didn't try to use the 200mm focal length on the R6 II + 200-800mm, where it would have a larger magnification.

Hi, I think you can find it in the Canon Technical data:

100-500
The 100-500 gives more magnification at 100 mm than you would think, less than at 500 however.


200-800
Odd the max magnification on this less is at the wide end.

 

[strobemonkey]

I Have watched some vidros of the Aussie guys using this lens, but they don't seem to say the lens produces sharp images like reviewers do with the RF and RF 85 f1.2.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I Have watched some vidros of the Aussie guys using this lens, but they don't seem to say the lens produces sharp images like reviewers do with the RF and RF 85 f1.2.

Watch "Wild Alaska" he and some other say it is comparable to the 100-500 although the 100-500 seems a bit sharper for pixel peepers, once you add the RF 1.4x the 200-800 is slightly sharper, per them. and if you use it on FF at 700mm and crop to match the 200-800 at 800mm then the 200-800 is sharper.

I have the 100-500 and a RF 1.4x and am have the 200-800 on order but am debating it. I also have the RF 100-400 and found it give excellent IQ both with and without the RF 1.4x. to my eye the 100-500 is slightly sharper, not not a significant amount and I love the lightness of it.

Again as I say I am pondering whether to buy it when I am notified it is in, Hunts has a 30 day return policy so may well use it for 3 weeks and see how I like it.