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

[Lester Wareham]

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
View attachment 31120

Nice work

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

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

View attachment 31273

Nicely done with all the testing, Dennis. Looking forward to seeing how your second copy of the lens will perform.

By the way, the German site/shop, teleskop-express is a great place to buy gear and find info. I bought a lot of stuff from them 12, 13 years or so ago when I dabbled in astrophotography a bit.

 

[Dennis]

As part of the investigation into the poor image quality from my Canon RF 200-800mm, lens I used an “Artificial Star” to act as a pinpoint source of light so I could record the out of focus diffraction pattern of the lens.

I used the following equipment for the tests.

• Canon RF 200-800mm
• Canon RF 100-500mm
• Canon RF 600mm F4 L.
• Canon RF Extender x1.4.

The tests were conducted in an enclosed space (my workshop), on a concrete floor, tripod mounted using a remote shutter release and electronic shutter mode.

Results:

• As you can see from the examples, the diffraction rings in the RF 200-800mm are non-concentric and severely off-centre.
• The other lenses showed sets of nicely concentric diffraction rings.
• As expected, the RF 600mm lens showed the cleanest rings with no colour fringing.

Procedure

• I mounted each camera/lens combination on a Gitzo System 3 CF tripod with a Manfrotto geared head, lens AF=ON and FOV centred on the artificial star placed 5 metres away.
• I then switched the lens to Manual Focus (MF) and slightly de-focused the lens to obtain the diffraction ring patterns. I did not record the amount of de-focusing nor the direction (CW or ACW) so the results from each lens do not have the same amount and direction of de-focus.

Dennis

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

Has anyone heard about a second wave of lens becoming available?

If and when I get mine I want to test it with the R6ii on the 200-800 vs the R7 on the 100-500. I have to think that the R6ii is going to give better images at a higher ISO than the R7 does.

 

[CANONISED]

Just found this thread. Received the RF200-800mm last week and been using it on the R7. Tried the Zoo and found it actually too long. Never needing more than 600mm on the R7 which is already a cropped sensor.

Don't kill me but so far, my combo is a tad behind the Sony Alpha A7Cii with the FE 200-600mm in terms of IQ (I also shoot with Sony). Am I the only one with that experience?
Next weekend I hope to take out the Canon set up to a park to try BIF handheld. Crossing my fingers.

 

[jwcdds]

Just found this thread. Received the RF200-800mm last week and been using it on the R7. Tried the Zoo and found it actually too long. Never needing more than 600mm on the R7 which is already a cropped sensor.

Don't kill me but so far, my combo is a tad behind the Sony Alpha A7Cii with the FE 200-600mm in terms of IQ (I also shoot with Sony). Am I the only one with that experience?
Next weekend I hope to take out the Canon set up to a park to try BIF handheld. Crossing my fingers.

I'm sure you already know this. But the A7Cii is full-frame. Comparing a FF to APS-C is technically not a fair comparison when you're not limited by reach/focal length. The same composition/framing, FF should win 99% of the time, IMO. But at the end of the day, it's whatever gear you've got and what you're able to capture and subsequently post-process/render.

But I do agree. The 200-800 on R7 is effectively like 320-1280. 320mm is quite restrictive if that's your starting wide end.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I'm sure you already know this. But the A7Cii is full-frame. Comparing a FF to APS-C is technically not a fair comparison when you're not limited by reach/focal length. The same composition/framing, FF should win 99% of the time, IMO. But at the end of the day, it's whatever gear you've got and what you're able to capture and subsequently post-process/render.

But I do agree. The 200-800 on R7 is effectively like 320-1280. 320mm is quite restrictive if that's your starting wide end.

Still better than my 100-500 with 1.4x extender, with my R7 it is 672-1120, without 1.4x it is 160-800 . The restriction to 300-500 on the 100-500 with an extender is why I am considering the 200-800.
when I finally get one or rent one I want to compare the R7 on 100-500 (160-800) and my R6ii on the 200-800, I would think especially for higher ISO's the R6ii would win...

Decisions Decisions

 

[Dennis]

I purchased a Canon RF 200-800m lens at the end of Dec 2023 and discovered that it was producing soft images.

The bricks and mortar store arranged for a replacement lens which I picked up today. A preliminary test indicates that this replacement is a good copy.

To help illustrate the defect, I used an “Artificial Star” to act as a pinpoint source of light so I could record the slightly out-of-focus diffraction pattern of the lens.

The 4-panel composite image shows the results of using a slightly de-focused “Artificial Star” from the old RF 200-800, the new replacement RF 200-800 and an RF 600mm F4L. I used an EOS R7 body to “get more pixels” on the target as it has 3.20 um pixels compared to the EOS R5 with 4.39 um.

The tests were conducted in an enclosed space (my workshop), on a concrete floor, tripod mounted using a remote shutter release and electronic shutter mode.

As you can see from the examples, the diffraction rings in the original RF 200-800mm are non-concentric and severely off-centre.

As expected, the RF 600mm lens showed the cleanest diffraction ring pattern with no colour fringing.

I mounted each camera/lens combination on a Gitzo System3 CF tripod with a geared head, lens AF=ON and centred the artificial star placed some 4-5 metres away.

I then switched the lens to Manual Focus (MF) and slightly de-focused the lens to obtain the diffraction ring patterns. I did not record the amount of de-focusing nor the direction (CW or ACW) so the results from each lens do not have the same amount and direction of de-focus.

Now all I have to do is get outdoors and take some proper photographs!

Dennis

 

[Tom Reichner]

.Canon RF 200-800mm ..... Who's in?
.

.
.
This release complicates things for me. Canon has REFUSED to make this type of lens, at this price point, for so long, that this summer I started the process of switching to Sony. I did not want to go mirrorless with Canon because of their proprietary, restrictive policy on 3rd party lensmakers and their RF mount.

But now that Canon has FINALLY made the kind of lens that I need at a reasonable price, it would make sense to get a Canon mirrorless body and this lens. But I already got some Sony gear. So now I am conflicted and honestly do not know whether to continue switching over to Sony or to abandon the switch and re-start my journey into mirrorless with Canon.

But it will be a long, long time before I have any money for any new gear at all, so I will have a long time to think this over before I have to act on a decision. Maybe by that time, these will be available used for $100 or $200 less than new, and maybe the Canon mirrorless bodies will drop a couple hundred dollars on the used market.

But yeah this lens seems like it would be so extremely useful that it has me reconsidering everything I have done, gear-wise, over the past year or two. If only Canon would have released this lens a couple years ago when everybody else was releasing lenses of this ilk at this price point, that would have made my life and my finances much simpler.

.
.

 

[Trvlr323]

.
.
This release complicates things for me. Canon has REFUSED to make this type of lens, at this price point, for so long, that this summer I started the process of switching to Sony. I did not want to go mirrorless with Canon because of their proprietary, restrictive policy on 3rd party lensmakers and their RF mount.

But now that Canon has FINALLY made the kind of lens that I need at a reasonable price, it would make sense to get a Canon mirrorless body and this lens. But I already got some Sony gear. So now I am conflicted and honestly do not know whether to continue switching over to Sony or to abandon the switch and re-start my journey into mirrorless with Canon.

But it will be a long, long time before I have any money for any new gear at all, so I will have a long time to think this over before I have to act on a decision. Maybe by that time, these will be available used for $100 or $200 less than new, and maybe the Canon mirrorless bodies will drop a couple hundred dollars on the used market.

But yeah this lens seems like it would be so extremely useful that it has me reconsidering everything I have done, gear-wise, over the past year or two. If only Canon would have released this lens a couple years ago when everybody else was releasing lenses of this ilk at this price point, that would have made my life and my finances much simpler.

.
.

Hey, Tom. I have been out of the forum loop for a while, but I remember you well from my past activity on POTN. I recall that your posts frequently contained elements of buying used and sticking to gear that was a generation or two old to save on the cost of entry and to focus funds on pursuing photographic trips and activities. EF lenses work so seamlessly on RF bodies and there are plenty of nice 3rd party choices available in EF. A lot of folks are enjoying amazing EF glass on the cheap. I’m very surprised that you aren’t doing the same.

I had the 100-500 and a couple of F/4 primes on hand before the 200-800 arrived. After enjoying L-series for so long I will admit that I met the 200-800 announcement with skepticism. How wrong I was. The versatility of a zoom and 800mm at the long end is allowing me to visually explore nature in a way I haven’t previously enjoyed, and it hasn’t left the camera since purchase – something I did not anticipate. I am having a lot of fun and F/9 was much more of a challenge on paper than in practice.

As for the position you find yourself in, I think the goal should be to chase the user experience that you desire. If I read you correctly that means lens first. The path seems clear. I would just advise that you try before you start putting resources into another switch, however.

 

[Tom Reichner]

I recall that your posts frequently contained elements of buying used and sticking to gear that was a generation or two old to save on the cost of entry and to focus funds on pursuing photographic trips and activities.

Yes I always must get the most bang for the buck that is possible. So the mirrorless body I picked up was a Sony A6400 that was very well used, and priced way way way below market value. I could easily recoup all of the money I spent on it if I decide to sell it. There are benefits to being a bottom-feeder
.

EF lenses work so seamlessly on RF bodies and there are plenty of nice 3rd party choices available in EF. A lot of folks are enjoying amazing EF glass on the cheap. I’m very surprised that you aren’t doing the same.

Currently, I have a 3rd party EF lens that I love, except that it performs HORRIBLY on my EF mount Canon DSLRs. It is the Sigma 60-600mm, and in so many ways it is a great lens, but the autofocus is absolutely horrendous on my 5D Mark 4, my 1D Mark 4, and my 6D. It is worlds behind my Canon 100-400mm, which autofocus surely and rapidly even in terrible conditions.

Likewise, my huge Sigma 300-800mm did not autofocus nearly as well on my Canon EF bodies as the native Canon lenses did.

Since my Sigma autofocus is so horrible on the EF mount cameras that it fits natively, why would I think that it would work supergreat on Canon RF mount cameras that it will need an adaptor to fit onto?

So due to these experiences, I have come to the conclusion that if you want awesome, lightning-fast, ultra-responsive autofocus when using very long supertelephoto lenses on Canon bodies, then you need Canon lenses to achieve that high standard of AF performance. And until now I did not want to buy Canon lenses ..... I wanted to buy 3rd party lenses and have them work magnificently, which in my mind meant that I needed to reconsider which brand of camera I would use, as Canon does not want 3rd party lenses performing as awesome as their own lenses do on their bodies. But Sony and Nikon seem to have little or no problem with 3rd party lenses autofocusing just as awesomely as their own lenses do, hence the move to Sony.
.

I had the 100-500 and a couple of F/4 primes on hand before the 200-800 arrived. After enjoying L-series for so long I will admit that I met the 200-800 announcement with skepticism. How wrong I was. The versatility of a zoom and 800mm at the long end is allowing me to visually explore nature in a way I haven’t previously enjoyed, and it hasn’t left the camera since purchase – something I did not anticipate.

Why were you skeptical about the 200-800 when you first heard about it? Was it just because it isn't called an "L series"? Or was there something tangible and specific about it that caused your skepticism?
.

I am having a lot of fun and F/9 was much more of a challenge on paper than in practice.

I very often, even regularly, shoot at f9 and beyond, so f9 has never seemed like much of a problem to me, so long as the out of focus areas are rendered in a smooth and creamy fashion and so long as the lens is super sharp wide open, so that stopping down never has to be done just to get optimal sharpness.
.

As for the position you find yourself in, I think the goal should be to chase the user experience that you desire. If I read you correctly that means lens first. The path seems clear. I would just advise that you try before you start putting resources into another switch, however.

Much of my photography is "lens first". But one genre I am doing more and more of lately - herp photography - is very much "body first", as certain features unique to mirrorless bodies are absolutely necessary for some of the scenarios I find myself trying to shoot.

Focus peaking is at the top of the list for features that are absolutely necessary. I mean I literally can not take the photos I want if I do not have focus peaking. And this is why I begrudgingly added a mirrorless camera to my bag.

.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

Tom
On the Sigma I sold my 150-600C with both that lens and the 18-300 with R bodies (I have the R7 and R6ii) it would pulse when focusing within 30 or so feet, further out it wasn't too bad but a lot of what I used it for was out the window at my feeders. I still have the 18-300 for my 90D and 7Dii.
Also I am not sure if I remember this on the 60-600 (a beast of a lens, although you and Arnold S. can handle it) was that at 600 the 150-600 IS didn't work that well.
The 100-500 on both the R6ii and R7 are spot on and quick, although I have to say that with an EF-RF adapter my EF 100-400Lii is almost as good as the 100-500, and the new "cheap" RF 100-400 is a real sleeper, it is really sharp and focuses great.

 

[Trvlr323]

Yes I always must get the most bang for the buck that is possible. So the mirrorless body I picked up was a Sony A6400 that was very well used, and priced way way way below market value. I could easily recoup all of the money I spent on it if I decide to sell it. There are benefits to being a bottom-feeder
.

Currently, I have a 3rd party EF lens that I love, except that it performs HORRIBLY on my EF mount Canon DSLRs. It is the Sigma 60-600mm, and in so many ways it is a great lens, but the autofocus is absolutely horrendous on my 5D Mark 4, my 1D Mark 4, and my 6D. It is worlds behind my Canon 100-400mm, which autofocus surely and rapidly even in terrible conditions.

Likewise, my huge Sigma 300-800mm did not autofocus nearly as well on my Canon EF bodies as the native Canon lenses did.

Since my Sigma autofocus is so horrible on the EF mount cameras that it fits natively, why would I think that it would work supergreat on Canon RF mount cameras that it will need an adaptor to fit onto?

So due to these experiences, I have come to the conclusion that if you want awesome, lightning-fast, ultra-responsive autofocus when using very long supertelephoto lenses on Canon bodies, then you need Canon lenses to achieve that high standard of AF performance. And until now I did not want to buy Canon lenses ..... I wanted to buy 3rd party lenses and have them work magnificently, which in my mind meant that I needed to reconsider which brand of camera I would use, as Canon does not want 3rd party lenses performing as awesome as their own lenses do on their bodies. But Sony and Nikon seem to have little or no problem with 3rd party lenses autofocusing just as awesomely as their own lenses do, hence the move to Sony.
.

Why were you skeptical about the 200-800 when you first heard about it? Was it just because it isn't called an "L series"? Or was there something tangible and specific about it that caused your skepticism?
.

I very often, even regularly, shoot at f9 and beyond, so f9 has never seemed like much of a problem to me, so long as the out of focus areas are rendered in a smooth and creamy fashion and so long as the lens is super sharp wide open, so that stopping down never has to be done just to get optimal sharpness.
.

Much of my photography is "lens first". But one genre I am doing more and more of lately - herp photography - is very much "body first", as certain features unique to mirrorless bodies are absolutely necessary for some of the scenarios I find myself trying to shoot.

Focus peaking is at the top of the list for features that are absolutely necessary. I mean I literally can not take the photos I want if I do not have focus peaking. And this is why I begrudgingly added a mirrorless camera to my bag.

.

Tom – I’m not married to Canon and have incorporated several other brands into the kit over the years. Mostly Nikon, some Sony, and a little OM. My feeling is that 3rd party lenes generally do not offer OEM performance, but still very good and useable. I do not have a lot of time with these zooms on Sony, so I will have to defer to your experience there. This does lead into your question about my skepticism. Based on previous experience with Tamron and Sigma I just didn’t believe that Canon was going to produce such a lens at this price point with this performance. I do not believe that Tamron or Sigma could produce a lens of this quality for less money.

I do some herp photography as well. I appreciate focus peaking with herps and closer macro work. Also a very convenient feature when shooting with adapted MF lenses. Certainly, a better experience than adapting to DSLR.

 

[Lester Wareham]

Still better than my 100-500 with 1.4x extender, with my R7 it is 672-1120, without 1.4x it is 160-800 . The restriction to 300-500 on the 100-500 with an extender is why I am considering the 200-800.
when I finally get one or rent one I want to compare the R7 on 100-500 (160-800) and my R6ii on the 200-800, I would think especially for higher ISO's the R6ii would win...

Decisions Decisions

Yup

 

[roqdawg]

Canon R7 with RF200-800mm. 742mm, f/9, 1/640 sec. Final image size 5900 x 3933, resized to 1500 x 1000 here.

 

[edmidlifecrisis]

Canon R7 with RF200-800mm. 742mm, f/9, 1/640 sec. Final image size 5900 x 3933, resized to 1500 x 1000 here.View attachment 36035

Really nice!!

 

[Still Grinning]

Canon R7 with RF200-800mm. 742mm, f/9, 1/640 sec. Final image size 5900 x 3933, resized to 1500 x 1000 here.View attachment 36035

Absolutely not doubting the lens (or your photographic ability!), but can I ask how much post processing was done on this? I'm not asking because it looks like it has had a lot of processing, more that actually the result looks great, but if I would have to spend 30 mins processing the raw file to get it to look like this, rather than the 30 seconds I need for editing a file from the RF100-500, then the lens would not work for me. If this is pretty much how it came out of the camera, then suddenly this lens looks a whole lot more appealing!!

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I purchased a Canon RF 200-800m lens at the end of Dec 2023 and discovered that it was producing soft images.

The bricks and mortar store arranged for a replacement lens which I picked up today. A preliminary test indicates that this replacement is a good copy.

I’m so happy you now have a good copy, Dennis! Congratulations. And looking forward to your images!

 

[roqdawg]

Absolutely not doubting the lens (or your photographic ability!), but can I ask how much post processing was done on this? I'm not asking because it looks like it has had a lot of processing, more that actually the result looks great, but if I would have to spend 30 mins processing the raw file to get it to look like this, rather than the 30 seconds I need for editing a file from the RF100-500, then the lens would not work for me. If this is pretty much how it came out of the camera, then suddenly this lens looks a whole lot more appealing!!

This is very much like it came out of the camera, except for the sweetening in post processing. Pretty much the same as I process images from the rest of my lenses except this lens needs a little contrast added occasionally. Processed with the free Canon DPP software in about 30 seconds (editing is pretty limited with DPP!). Nothing added or removed from the image. Brightness +0.05, Clarity +1, Contrast +.3, Shadow +3.5, Highlight -4.5, Saturation 110% (yellow saturation pulled down -0.5), Sharpness (unsharp mask, strength 3.0, fineness 0.0, threshold 2.0), digital lens optimizer 50, cropped to 5900 x 3933.

This is the finished image again, followed by the straight out of the camera image with no adjustments, just converted to jpeg and resized to 1500 x 1000.

 

[Still Grinning]

This is very much like it came out of the camera, except for the sweetening in post processing. Pretty much the same as I process images from the rest of my lenses except this lens needs a little contrast added occasionally. Processed with the free Canon DPP software in about 30 seconds (editing is pretty limited with DPP!). Nothing added or removed from the image. Brightness +0.05, Clarity +1, Contrast +.3, Shadow +3.5, Highlight -4.5, Saturation 110% (yellow saturation pulled down -0.5), Sharpness (unsharp mask, strength 3.0, fineness 0.0, threshold 2.0), digital lens optimizer 50, cropped to 5900 x 3933.

This is the finished image again, followed by the straight out of the camera image with no adjustments, just converted to jpeg and resized to 1500 x 1000.View attachment 36400
View attachment 36399

Thank you for taking the time to answer!

This is a great photo and this lens just got a lot more interesting for me!