Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[AlanF]

Alan,

Based on the findings from the Digital Picture test charts, your comments above regarding the RF 100-500mm with the 1.4X and 2X gets very interesting.
Could you please elaborate a little bit more around this. For instance is your nailing problems with the 2X TC when you use your R5, or your R7, or...?

Looking at the test charts it seems as the 100-500 with the 2X TC is as sharp or even slightly sharper than the 200-800mm with the 1.4X TC at the center and mid-frame !?
Are you satisfied with your shots taken with your 100-500mm + 2X TC at 1000mm f14 (using the R5 and or R7) ?

I blow hot and cold over extenders, especially as nowadays upscaling with Topaz is so effective. To be honest, I like the very sharp and contrasty images from the bare RF 100-500mm, but sometimes the extra focal length does help. When I use the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm on the R5 I make sure I take several shots so the focus is nailed. I don't use extenders in the field with the R7 because my wife generally uses it with the RF 100-400 while I take the R5 and the heavier 100-500 lens. Late this afternoon I had the R7 with the RF 100-500mm when we got a tip there were some Waxwings a short drive away, and I got some satisfying shots in the fading light at iso 32000 I have just posted in the Bird Portrait thread. The 100-500 on the R7 has the same field of view at the long end as the 800mm on FF and may well seriously outresolve the 200-800 on FF if the TDP results are really representative, and I'd choose the lighter RF 800mm f/11 if I was going somewhere where 800mm would be the focal length necessary.

 

[Longtermer]

I blow hot and cold over extenders, especially as nowadays upscaling with Topaz is so effective. To be honest, I like the very sharp and contrasty images from the bare RF 100-500mm, but sometimes the extra focal length does help. When I use the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm on the R5 I make sure I take several shots so the focus is nailed. I don't use extenders in the field with the R7 because my wife generally uses it with the RF 100-400 while I take the R5 and the heavier 100-500 lens. Late this afternoon I had the R7 with the RF 100-500mm when we got a tip there were some Waxwings a short drive away, and I got some satisfying shots in the fading light at iso 32000 I have just posted in the Bird Portrait thread. The 100-500 on the R7 has the same field of view at the long end as the 800mm on FF and may well seriously outresolve the 200-800 on FF if the TDP results are really representative, and I'd choose the lighter RF 800mm f/11 if I was going somewhere where 800mm would be the focal length necessary.

Alan - in your experience does the use of extenders make any noticeable difference, for good or bad, on AF?

 

[Loswr]

Alan - in your experience does the use of extenders make any noticeable difference, for good or bad, on AF?

Extenders slow down the AF. Rudy Winston (Canon USA tech rep) stated:

While it’s apparently less than was the case with EF-mount tele extenders and AF, there’s a designed-in reduction in actual AF drive speed of a lens with extenders mounted. This isn’t a design flaw, but rather a feature to ensure consistent AF, and ability for the AF drive to stop at the precise point of sharpest detected focus. Obviously, there’s also the issue of light loss with extenders, and while modern R-series cameras can technically AF at effective max apertures down to f/22, it’s clear that any modern AF system performs better with more light hitting the AF sensor, or image sensor in the case of mirrorless cameras.

 

[AlanF]

Alan - in your experience does the use of extenders make any noticeable difference, for good or bad, on AF?

As @neuroanatomist quoted, they have deleterious effect both in speed and accuracy. Canon also decreases the area over which the lens will focus as the aperture narrows. f/9 will be worse than f/7.1 For speed. The plus is that eyeAF works at longer distances as the image size increases.

 

[koenkooi]

Duade just dropped his first impressions:

A follow up comparing it to the 100-500 is in the works as well. Jan Wegener also has a cameo

 

[AlanF]

Duade just dropped his first impressions:

A follow up comparing it to the 100-500 is in the works as well. Jan Wegener also has a cameo

Drip, drip, drip. It looks sharp but wait til I get back and look at it on the computer etc. I want to know how it compares with the 100-500 and the 800/11 and not fed snippets to keep me hooked. But, that's the way he makes his money.

 

[Longtermer]

Extenders slow down the AF. Rudy Winston (Canon USA tech rep) stated:

"This isn’t a design flaw, but rather a feature to ensure consistent AF, and ability for the AF drive to stop at the precise point of sharpest detected focus."

Really interesting that it's a built-in software effect. I was assuming at least some natural degradation from using extenders.

 

[Jethro]

Canon also decreases the area over which the lens will focus as the aperture narrows. f/9 will be worse than f/7.1 For speed.

But, on the other hand, the extender increases (or at least appears to increase) the proportion of the area which the subject (assume a single central subject) occupies - so I'm assuming the focus area narrows by more than the 'extender effect' of 1.4x or 2x?

Anecdotally, I've always found it easier to hit focus using a 1.4x extender - but that may simply be me being better able to position what looks like a larger subject somewhere near the middle of the screen!

 

[AlanF]

But, on the other hand, the extender increases (or at least appears to increase) the proportion of the area which the subject (assume a single central subject) occupies - so I'm assuming the focus area narrows by more than the 'extender effect' of 1.4x or 2x?

Anecdotally, I've always found it easier to hit focus using a 1.4x extender - but that may simply be me being better able to position what looks like a larger subject somewhere near the middle of the screen!

It is easier for the AF AI to find the subject eg eyeAF as I mentioned using an extender. That’s good for a static subject but having found it, it locks on less precisely and gives fewer tack sharp shots. For BIF, the slower AF can mean it hunts more and is slower to lock on and the focus is both less precise and doesn’t keep up with a fast bird changing distance. The narrower field of view by focussing only in the centre makes it more difficult to keep the bird in frame. Nevertheless, I had avery successful day recently shooting Shorteared Owls in flight using the RF 800/11 as they were distant and fly predictably and not too fast. Similarly with distant slow BIF using the 2xTC.

Show your Bird Portraits

A female Phainopepla perched atop a coffeeberry bush watching for early morning prey. R5 RF600 w/1.4X 1/2000 : f/8 : ISO 1000 One of the female Western Bluebirds topping off the tank. R5 RF600 w/1.4X 1/1600 : f/8 : ISO 640

www.canonrumors.com

 

[koenkooi]

 

[AlanF]

Could you please tell us the take home message.

 

[koenkooi]

Could you please tell us the take home message.

It works well, even on the R7, but it lacks the L series coatings, so bright spots in images ‘bleed’ over into their surroundings.

The not-so-great AF on the R7 is highlighted some more with this lens, it does shine on the R5/R3.

The IS goes haywire from time to time, that can be ‘fixed’ by shaking the lens.

 

[Klas R]

Could you please tell us the take home message.

Maybe:

If you are fresh into birdphotography and haven't bought equipment yet: Go for it ! Buy the RF 200-800 lens.


If you already have a RF 100-500, start using it more often with a 1.4X TC, you will get something very similar and possibly a little bit sharper (ref Digital Picture lens comparisons). As well a much better Macro opportunity, more lightweight, etc etc

If you also happen to own a RF 2.0X TC then you have a 1000mm lens combination which is more or less as good as you can get with other Canon lens combinations with a TC at a similar combination ( e.g 200-800 + 1.4X TC).

I.e. continue with your RF 100-500, and buy immediately a 1.4X TC, and possibly later as well the 2.0X TC

 

[AlanF]

Maybe:

If you are fresh into birdphotography and haven't bought equipment yet: Go for it ! Buy the RF 200-800 lens.


If you already have a RF 100-500, start using it more often with a 1.4X TC, you will get something very similar and possibly a little bit sharper (ref Digital Picture lens comparisons). As well a much better Macro opportunity, more lightweight, etc etc

If you also happen to own a RF 2.0X TC then you have a 1000mm lens combination which is more or less as good as you can get with other Canon lens combinations with a TC at a similar combination ( e.g 200-800 + 1.4X TC).

I.e. continue with your RF 100-500, and buy immediately a 1.4X TC, and possibly later as well the 2.0X TC

Thanks Klas! I already have both TCs. The 2xTC on my RF 100-500mm I know already beats out by 800/11 when the AF is spot on. The 1.4x may be sharper in the TDP but remember he takes the shots with closer in so the 800mm might have an advantage.

 

[Klas R]

Thanks Klas! I already have both TCs. The 2xTC on my RF 100-500mm I know already beats out by 800/11 when the AF is spot on. The 1.4x may be sharper in the TDP but remember he takes the shots with closer in so the 800mm might have an advantage.

Well, I happen to already own a RF 100-500. As well as a 1.4X TC (which I haven't used very often so far).

Yesterday I ordered a RF 2.0X TC, and I got it today....
And I intend to use the 100-500 +1.4X TC ... MUCH more frequently from now on.

So, at least for the moment I've stepped of the RF 200-800mm train

 

[AlanF]

It works well, even on the R7, but it lacks the L series coatings, so bright spots in images ‘bleed’ over into their surroundings.

The not-so-great AF on the R7 is highlighted some more with this lens, it does shine on the R5/R3.

The IS goes haywire from time to time, that can be ‘fixed’ by shaking the lens.

I watched it, and it was pretty good. I have to admit that my skill levels are such I wouldn't use a 200-800 on the R7. The field of view is too narrow for me, equivalent to 320-1280mm on FF. The 100-500mm on the R7 is equivalent to 160-800mm on the R5/R6/R3/R8, and conversely the 200-800 on FF equivalent to 125-500mm on the R7.

 

[AlanF]

Some comments and questions the next morning.
1. RF 200-800mm on FF versus RF 100-500mm on R7
He complains that the AF of the 200-800 on the R7 isn't good, and I wouldn't want that lens on an APS-C anyway, so let's consider its designed for FF, and what it does as is in my last post is to give a similar field of view range as the RF 100-500mm on APS-C. So, I'd like to see a), a comparison of the IQ of 100-500mm on an R7 or lower Mpx APS-C vs 200-800mm on the R5 and lower Mpx FF. b) a comparison of the AF at 800mm on the R5 etc with AF on the R7 etc.
2. He doesn't recommend the use of extenders on the 200-800 but does show some good images. However, how do the images at 1120mm and 1600mm compare with that at 800mm in terms of additional real resolution. I would guess not much in practice.

I think his conclusion that it wont replace his 100-500 but he will keep it as a useful extra is fair comment. But, what I really want to know is it even significantly useful if you have an R7 if that plus the RF 100-500 covers what the R5 or R6 Plus 200-800 can do in practice for IQ and AF for flying birds? Lugging around and packing a larger lens, the poorer AF, poorer IQ zoomed in and lower magnification at mfd are negatives. But, the R7 isn't my first choice for BIF, and from what I see from him the 100-500 on the R5 or other FF are better than 200-800mm

 

[Klas R]

Some comments and questions the next morning.
1. RF 200-800mm on FF versus RF 100-500mm on R7
He complains that the AF of the 200-800 on the R7 isn't good, and I wouldn't want that lens on an APS-C anyway, so let's consider its designed for FF, and what it does as is in my last post is to give a similar field of view range as the RF 100-500mm on APS-C. So, I'd like to see a), a comparison of the IQ of 100-500mm on an R7 or lower Mpx APS-C vs 200-800mm on the R5 and lower Mpx FF. b) a comparison of the AF at 800mm on the R5 etc with AF on the R7 etc.
2. He doesn't recommend the use of extenders on the 200-800 but does show some good images. However, how do the images at 1120mm and 1600mm compare with that at 800mm in terms of additional real resolution. I would guess not much in practice.

I think his conclusion that it wont replace his 100-500 but he will keep it as a useful extra is fair comment. But, what I really want to know is it even significantly useful if you have an R7 if that plus the RF 100-500 covers what the R5 or R6 Plus 200-800 can do in practice for IQ and AF for flying birds? Lugging around and packing a larger lens, the poorer AF, poorer IQ zoomed in and lower magnification at mfd are negatives. But, the R7 isn't my first choice for BIF, and from what I see from him the 100-500 on the R5 or other FF are better than 200-800mm

Interesting thoughts.

Maybe you should forward these questions/requests to Jan W himself? He is anyway going to test the RF 200-800 towards the 100-500 as far as I understood. So your questions might be valuable input to Jan and his test.

 

[AlanF]

Interesting thoughts.

Maybe you should forward these questions/requests to Jan W himself? He is anyway going to test the RF 200-800 towards the 100-500 as far as I understood. So your questions might be valuable input to Jan and his test.

Done it.

 

[Klas R]

Done it.

Excellent!

However, I notice that Jan W has already received 331 comments related to his review.

He will have a lot to do just reading them. Though I think he takes notes on interesting questions and comments.
Hopefully we will get some answers in the next presentation.