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

[Levina de Ruijter]

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.

Yes, exactly.
However, having had a chance to look at the pics, those taken with the 100-500 are superior to those taken with the 300/4L + 1.4xTC. They’re sharper with more detail.

 

[Lester Wareham]

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.

My memory is the second Wild Alaska review looked at this question.

 

[roqdawg]

Yes, exactly.
However, having had a chance to look at the pics, those taken with the 100-500 are superior to those taken with the 300/4L + 1.4xTC. They’re sharper with more detail.

And that is why I don't use teleconverters much, other than with the 600mm f/4 because that my longest fast lens (1.4x makes it an 840mm f/5.6). The 100-500mm L lens is every bit as sharp as my 600mm L IMO, but the 200-800mm is not quite there. My R7 has no trouble with eye detect focus using the 100-500mm f/7.1, but is not as reliable with the 200-800mm f/9. Add to the equation that you may be forced to use a higher ISO with the f/9 (and f/11) lenses to get the same shot and you are losing even more sharpness. I believe that once you get slower than f/8, you are pushing the limit of reliable eye detect focus...may be another reason why the 200-800mm is better when you back off from 800mm, as the f stop gets a little faster. I'm going to try the R7 / 200-800 combo on the gimbal today and see how much that helps from handholding.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

And that is why I don't use teleconverters much, other than with the 600mm f/4 because that my longest fast lens (1.4x makes it an 840mm f/5.6). The 100-500mm L lens is every bit as sharp as my 600mm L IMO, but the 200-800mm is not quite there. My R7 has no trouble with eye detect focus using the 100-500mm f/7.1, but is not as reliable with the 200-800mm f/9. Add to the equation that you may be forced to use a higher ISO with the f/9 (and f/11) lenses to get the same shot and you are losing even more sharpness. I believe that once you get slower than f/8, you are pushing the limit of reliable eye detect focus...may be another reason why the 200-800mm is better when you back off from 800mm, as the f stop gets a little faster. I'm going to try the R7 / 200-800 combo on the gimbal today and see how much that helps from handholding.

Let us know about the results and see some images! I have the R6ii and the R7 and also the RF 100-500. With the R7 the 100-500 becomes a 160-800 and I would think is slightly superior to the 200-800, but I haven't gotten one to try yet.
I am agonizing over whether to get it or not, the downside to me of the 100-500 is that it is 300-500 with the 1.4x but to me that is the only downside. the setup is lighter than the 200-800 will be, I know that when I had the Sigma 150-600C the weight was an issue although not that bad (it was more the jumpy AF at 600mm) so the 200-800 I am sure will be managable.

I am also trying to decide whether to sell my 90D, 7Dii, EF100-400, Sigma 18-300 and a couple EF-S lenses, the thing is I don't really need the money as I already have savings for the 200-800 if I get it. I just had to sell gear I might use or have used...

Finally, I wonder what the R5 mk 2 will be like if and when it comes out, will it blow away the R6 mk 2? I really like having knobs on the top rather than a screen but that is just me. But with enough megapixels to crop the RF 100-500 would potentially rival the 200-800 with a R52

I just don't know. I had thought about the 800/11 but it is awful slow and also no zoom which is helpful.

 

[Lester Wareham]

Yes, exactly.
However, having had a chance to look at the pics, those taken with the 100-500 are superior to those taken with the 300/4L + 1.4xTC. They’re sharper with more detail.

Be interesting to know how they compare at 300 mm, I suspect the 100-500 will be sharper....

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

And that is why I don't use teleconverters much, other than with the 600mm f/4 because that my longest fast lens (1.4x makes it an 840mm f/5.6). The 100-500mm L lens is every bit as sharp as my 600mm L IMO, but the 200-800mm is not quite there. My R7 has no trouble with eye detect focus using the 100-500mm f/7.1, but is not as reliable with the 200-800mm f/9. Add to the equation that you may be forced to use a higher ISO with the f/9 (and f/11) lenses to get the same shot and you are losing even more sharpness. I believe that once you get slower than f/8, you are pushing the limit of reliable eye detect focus...may be another reason why the 200-800mm is better when you back off from 800mm, as the f stop gets a little faster. I'm going to try the R7 / 200-800 combo on the gimbal today and see how much that helps from handholding.

I never liked using extenders either. But there was one exception: the Canon 5D with the EF 300/4L. It took the 1.4xTC extremely well. I couldn't see any loss of image quality.

Be interesting to know how they compare at 300 mm, I suspect the 100-500 will be sharper....

I know the 300mm was very sharp on the R6. I mean, really sharp. I don't know how it would compare with the 100-500mm @300mm on the R6II. I should do a test...

 

[roqdawg]

Let us know about the results and see some images! I have the R6ii and the R7 and also the RF 100-500. With the R7 the 100-500 becomes a 160-800 and I would think is slightly superior to the 200-800, but I haven't gotten one to try yet.
I am agonizing over whether to get it or not, the downside to me of the 100-500 is that it is 300-500 with the 1.4x but to me that is the only downside. the setup is lighter than the 200-800 will be, I know that when I had the Sigma 150-600C the weight was an issue although not that bad (it was more the jumpy AF at 600mm) so the 200-800 I am sure will be managable.

I am also trying to decide whether to sell my 90D, 7Dii, EF100-400, Sigma 18-300 and a couple EF-S lenses, the thing is I don't really need the money as I already have savings for the 200-800 if I get it. I just had to sell gear I might use or have used...

Finally, I wonder what the R5 mk 2 will be like if and when it comes out, will it blow away the R6 mk 2? I really like having knobs on the top rather than a screen but that is just me. But with enough megapixels to crop the RF 100-500 would potentially rival the 200-800 with a R52

I just don't know. I had thought about the 800/11 but it is awful slow and also no zoom which is helpful.

It was 20 degrees this morning but since I can only shoot on the weekends, I soldiered on and took the R7 and 200-800mm out in the yard to test it on the gimbal. I think it was a big improvement over handholding, at least with the shutter speeds and ISOs I normally shoot at. I left the Image Stabilization turned on. I do think that the IS is maybe what puts this lens behind the 100-500mm in my book, but I did get a much better keeper rate on the gimbal so I'm encouraged. I will say it was difficult to work the zoom ring with a heavy glove on frozen fingers! I'll post a few more as I process them. I use Canon DPP if that matters to anyone playing along at home. LOL.

This one is with the R7, 637mm, 1/800 sec, f/9, ISO 400. Final image cropped to 5700 x 3800 pixels (resized to 1500 x 1000 here). The sharpness here is impressive!

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

It was 20 degrees this morning but since I can only shoot on the weekends, I soldiered on and took the R7 and 200-800mm out in the yard to test it on the gimbal. I think it was a big improvement over handholding, at least with the shutter speeds and ISOs I normally shoot at. I left the Image Stabilization turned on. I do think that the IS is maybe what puts this lens behind the 100-500mm in my book, but I did get a much better keeper rate on the gimbal so I'm encouraged. I will say it was difficult to work the zoom ring with a heavy glove on frozen fingers! I'll post a few more as I process them. I use Canon DPP if that matters to anyone playing along at home. LOL.

This one is with the R7, 637mm, 1/800 sec, f/9, ISO 400. Final image cropped to 5700 x 3800 pixels (resized to 1500 x 1000 here). The sharpness here is impressive!
View attachment 30274

Looks great, Thomas.

 

[roqdawg]

R7, 800mm, 1/800 sec, f/9, ISO 400. Final image cropped to 5400 x 3600 pixels (resized to 1500 x 1000 here).

 

[Dennis]

I believe that I have a faulty RF 200-800mm lens, purchased 3 weeks ago and I have only just got round to testing it against my RF600mm with RF Extender x1.4 as I was getting quite poor results.

These are both tripod mounted shots, using a Canon EOS R5, indoors, from the same location, using a remote shutter release.

The results from the RF200-800 shocked me. They look soft and fuzzy. I did this test with IS on and IS Off and there was no difference.

This is not what I would expect from this lens, even though it is not an L Lens.

Looks like I’ll be taking it back and asking for a refund or replacement.

Dennis

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I believe that I have a faulty RF 200-800mm lens, purchased 3 weeks ago and I have only just got round to testing it against my RF600mm with RF Extender x1.4 as I was getting quite poor results.

These are both tripod mounted shots, using a Canon EOS R5, indoors, from the same location, using a remote shutter release.

The results from the RF200-800 shocked me. They look soft and fuzzy. I did this test with IS on and IS Off and there was no difference.

This is not what I would expect from this lens, even though it is not an L Lens.

Looks like I’ll be taking it back and asking for a refund or replacement.

Dennis

View attachment 30983

View attachment 30982

Something is definitely wrong here, Dennis.

 

[Joeseph]

I believe that I have a faulty RF 200-800mm lens, purchased 3 weeks ago and I have only just got round to testing it against my RF600mm with RF Extender x1.4 as I was getting quite poor results.

These are both tripod mounted shots, using a Canon EOS R5, indoors, from the same location, using a remote shutter release.

The results from the RF200-800 shocked me. They look soft and fuzzy. I did this test with IS on and IS Off and there was no difference.

This is not what I would expect from this lens, even though it is not an L Lens.

Looks like I’ll be taking it back and asking for a refund or replacement.

Dennis

View attachment 30983

View attachment 30982

I know the IS & IBIS is supposed to be good but isn't 1/125 a bit slow to be a reasonable test? thinking that the smallest amount of movement will be really noticeable.

Any chance you can do similar test with good outdoor lighting? reason I'm asking is that I've a trip coming up to Melbourne in March & very tempted to get a new lens (i.e. 200-800mm)

 

[jwcdds]

I believe that I have a faulty RF 200-800mm lens, purchased 3 weeks ago and I have only just got round to testing it against my RF600mm with RF Extender x1.4 as I was getting quite poor results.

These are both tripod mounted shots, using a Canon EOS R5, indoors, from the same location, using a remote shutter release.

The results from the RF200-800 shocked me. They look soft and fuzzy. I did this test with IS on and IS Off and there was no difference.

This is not what I would expect from this lens, even though it is not an L Lens.

Looks like I’ll be taking it back and asking for a refund or replacement.

Dennis

How far away was the chart? The 200-800's minimum focus distance at 800mm is something obnoxious like 13-feet or so I think. I'm quite sure the 600 prime (even with the TC) is shorter. Was the chart far enough away? (Doesn't mean I believe the 200-800 could ever rival the prime/tc, but that looks like the chart was out of focus, and not so much an issue of sharpness.) just my opinion.

 

[Lester Wareham]

I believe that I have a faulty RF 200-800mm lens, purchased 3 weeks ago and I have only just got round to testing it against my RF600mm with RF Extender x1.4 as I was getting quite poor results.

These are both tripod mounted shots, using a Canon EOS R5, indoors, from the same location, using a remote shutter release.

The results from the RF200-800 shocked me. They look soft and fuzzy. I did this test with IS on and IS Off and there was no difference.

This is not what I would expect from this lens, even though it is not an L Lens.

Looks like I’ll be taking it back and asking for a refund or replacement.

Dennis

View attachment 30983

View attachment 30982

That looks very poor.

I presume that is wide open, but can't assume it would get better stopping down a bit. It seems equally poor on the whole frame rather that a corner like you might get with element decentring.

 

[Dennis]

Thanks for all the comments, I appreciate them.

The tripod is a Gitzo Series 3 with a Pro Media Ball head, so I am happy that camera shake is not an issue and I was using electronic shutter.

The test chart was some 11 metres away along our hall way to minimise e.g. air currents, thermal layers, etc. which would have affected both lenses equally.

The softness and fuzziness are present throughout the frame on the 200-800 test exposures.

Dennis

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Thanks for all the comments, I appreciate them.

The tripod is a Gitzo Series 3 with a Pro Media Ball head, so I am happy that camera shake is not an issue and I was using electronic shutter.

The test chart was some 11 metres away along our hall way to minimise e.g. air currents, thermal layers, etc. which would have affected both lenses equally.

The softness and fuzziness are present throughout the frame on the 200-800 test exposures.

Dennis

Yeah, something isn't right with that particular copy, Dennis. If this was normal for this lens, the reviews would not be so good. Something is wrong. Send it back.

 

[Dennis]

Yeah, something isn't right with that particular copy, Dennis. If this was normal for this lens, the reviews would not be so good. Something is wrong. Send it back.

Thanks Levina.

I just ran another test this morning.

I have an “artificial star” that I use to collimate my telescopes and thought I would use this as a light source to further explore this problem. It was positioned 5 metres away.

The diameter of the “artificial star” is smaller than the Airy Disc so it is acting as a point source of light and not an extended disc.

You can clearly see what appears to be a bad case of coma in the RF 200-800mm image.

Dennis

 

[Dennis]

Just for completeness, here is the same "Artificial Star" test with the Canon RF 100-500mm fitted with RF Extender x1.4 to give a FL of 700mm.

The small, bright, intense dot is tight and not comatic as in the 200-800 image.

Dennis

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

The small, bright, intense dot is tight and not comatic as in the 200-800 image.

Yes. Coma is like a comet. Not a dot but elongated. Clearly visible in the 200-800 lens.

 

[Dennis]

I believe that I have a faulty RF 200-800mm lens that shows significant coma, producing soft, fuzzy images even when the subject fills the frame. As part of my ongoing investigation I next set up a test rig using an “Artificial Star” Unit designed for Telescope Tests and Collimation. According to their website,

"In order to collimate a telescope or to detect optical aberrations such as astigmatism or coma you need only a short distance between the telescope and the artificial star".

https://www.teleskop-express.de/en/...tar-for-telescope-tests-and-collimation-10781

The Unit has a precise pinhole with 22 µm diameter as the light source.

I tested the RF 200-800mm (800mm) against the RF 100-500m with RF Extender x1.4 (700mm) and the coma in the RF 200-800 was plain to see. Tests were performed tripod mounted, concrete floor, using a remote release, electronic shutter at distances of between 5 and 8 metres. I used the EOS R7 to "get more pixels on the target". Each lens was slightly de-focused to more clearly display the diffraction rings around the point-like Artificial Star.

The camera shop is getting another copy of the lens, so this time I will take my artificial star with me to test the replacement in the shop.

Dennis