Best of Canon 2023: #1 RF 200-800 F6.3-9 IS USM

[scyrene]

a combination of price, and usability. this is a lens that Canon hasn't had and needed for ages. How many people have wanted Canon to do a Super tele zoom going to at least 600mm?

also that combination you mention is around $3100 versus $1900. At times the best, isn't the most technologically superior or the most breathtaking, but one that ticks the boxes between price, performance, usability, size or weight.

It's worth pointing out that in the UK at least, the 100-500 has been cheaper than the 200-800 since the latter's release. That muddies the waters somewhat.

 

[Dragon]

He's in Mongolia!

Is he going bring us back pictures of hunting eagles?

 

[Dragon]

I am happy with the 200-800 . The site won't upload right now, but I posted some shots over in the "One day with the 200-800" thread.

 

[Mountain Dave]

Is anyone else intrigued by Canon's focus on producing innovative zooms for the RF mount? IIRC, the only prime lens put out in 2023 was the 28 2.8. There are only 8 L primes so far and only the light weight 1200 could be considered unusual. I'm a big fan of primes, I own a bunch. But the RF zooms I've bought have been so good I now use the primes much less than I used to.

 

[DhlcadR6]

RF200-800 is the lens that made me not move into E/Z-mount completely and ditch RF. I was waiting a 200-600/1xx-600 equivalent. Time to sell my Sony a1

 

[Richard CR]

It's also a great thing that 2023 had so many great products from Canon that you all have something to disagree with me about

 

[DrMathochist]

Or by using on an R7, which yields impressive results.

That's what I still do with my RF 100-500/4.5-7.1, where I top out at about ISO 1600 usable (yeah, yeah, get AI denoise, I know...). On my R6II, however, that long end is equivalent to 800/11 at ISO 4000. That leaves 2/3 stop to narrow my DoF (800/9 at ISO 2500) and that leaves the R6II a lot of headroom on the ISO.

Are there some IQ advantages on the 100-500? sure. But they're not huge, and to pretend that an 89mm entrance pupil isn't a step up from 70mm is ridiculous.

 

[TheRealUnfocused]

Is anyone else intrigued by Canon's focus on producing innovative zooms for the RF mount? ...I'm a big fan of primes, I own a bunch. But the RF zooms I've bought have been so good I now use the primes much less than I used to.

I think you hit the nail on the head. With modern zooms, the advantages of primes are no longer as significant as they once were, while the advantages of zooms seem to keep growing. No question that zooms have a wider market appeal. I only own two primes: the EF 100 macro and the bargain RF 16mm f2,8, which I can throw in the bag or even my pocket at the last minute if I think I might want to take a wide shot.

 

[woodman411]

The most important product is determined by how one prefers to shoot and is therefore completely subjective. I don't do any wildlife shooting so this top pick has zero meaning for me but might be highly valued by others. Maybe describing who a product is for would help, eg. wildlife, portrait, general, landscape, astro, sports, video, budget, etc. Also, it might be helpful to compare the Canon product with its competitors so there is more context. For example, the R8 may seem like a great deal, especially next to the pricier R6II, but the R8 next to the similarly priced Panasonic S5II (going by 6th Ave prices where only a few hundred separate them), doesn't seem that great anymore. I suspect though that Panasonic is dumping prices on the S5II at this time to gain marketshare.

 

[Richard CR]

Will this lens fit on an R100 ?

 

[David - Sydney]

It's also a great thing that 2023 had so many great products from Canon that you all have something to disagree with me about

I resemble that remark!

 

[AlanF]

Ah, now I see where the misunderstanding comes in. The DPReview forum story is actually a summary and paraphrasing of Wegener's video comments by someone named Hovland. I lifted the quotes directly from the original video. But, it's really not worth quibbling about. Wegner's overall conclusion is very positive for both bodies and as Hovland stated, it is probably more of an issue with the R7 than with the lens.

I had previously got that take home message myself from watching the YouTube and found the Hovland account when you queried which video. The R7 is popular with birders and so relevant to them, which includes me. So, I am interested in what others find.

 

[Del Paso]

Is he going bring us back pictures of hunting eagles?

With the current temperatures, rather of frozen fingers... unless Mongolia has a milder climate than Finland or Norway.

 

[koenkooi]

Chosing the "top products" I would have considered going with two lines: pro level and consumer level. [...]

Since Canon only launches a handful of new products each year, any split will likely have the effect of all the new products end up in a top 3.

 

[Toamelicious]

I find it amusing, how people keep bringing up that the RF200-800 is not going to replace a 100-500 but complements it.
Not only in this forum, but basically on the whole photography web, it really seemed as if owners of 100-500 lenses were trying their best to defend their choice of lens.
A) no need to be defensive about having bought an awesome lens like the 100-500 with or without extenders.
B) no shit Sherlock those lenses complement each other canon would have been pretty stupid to bring out two lenses so similar, that they discouraged getting both of them for maximum flexibility. They know we have a lot of spare coin in our bags and they probably have a whole think-tank working on how to get the most of it

 

[AlanF]

I find it amusing, how people keep bringing up that the RF200-800 is not going to replace a 100-500 but complements it.
Not only in this forum, but basically on the whole photography web, it really seemed as if owners of 100-500 lenses were trying their best to defend their choice of lens.
A) no need to be defensive about having bought an awesome lens like the 100-500 with or without extenders.
B) no shit Sherlock those lenses complement each other canon would have been pretty stupid to bring out two lenses so similar, that they discouraged getting both of them for maximum flexibility. They know we have a lot of spare coin in our bags and they probably have a whole think-tank working on how to get the most of it

Canon is sufficiently ruthless that it will bring out a new lens to render an existing one obsolete, real or imaginary, so that current owners will replace it if it will make Canon money. That's its stock in trade for bodies.

 

[Quack]

....

If the rumour for new Canon primes is true for 2024 then that would open my wallet especially if a 14/1.4 and 20/1.4 comes out. Both have never been in Canon's range before. If Canon isn't interested then I hope that they approve 3rd party options even if in manual focus.

There are already 3rd party manual focus lenses being made. Canon need not approve them. Canon only halted those 3rd party lenses that infringed on their Autofocus patents.

 

[chasingrealness]

Since the 200-800 doesn’t do close focussing, it wouldn’t replace my 100-500, but supplement it. The 100-500 for dragonflies and amphibian close-ups and the 200-800 for birds or shots with more environment.

I feel the same - I have the sigma EF 100-400 for my full frame body and this 200-800mm on my R7 would make a perfect combo. I will probably have to add a red headband to my field kit though because I’m gonna have Rambo arms carrying those two beasty lenses around.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's an unusal choice lens, however I thnk it will be a big seller for Canon.
It's too big for a walk abouts lens, which is where the 100-500L excels. The 200-800 is really big and fairly heavy. So it'll be bought and used for a specific group of people who don't already have any coverage in this particular focal range. So I'm guessing it's most common use case scenario is for the occasional wild lifer / birder.
Any serious wildlifer / birder will already have this range covered by a 600/4 and a 1.4x tc or a 400/2.8 and a 2x tc. I'm certainly in this camp and I wouldn't drop a further £2.5K on a lens that offers a large bulk, versatile zoom range...but a relatively low brightness. Certainly in additon to my already very specific kit. It's not that I'm in any way against this lens...it's specs are really good. I just don't have a need for this particular optic. If I'm out on a wild life / birding shoot, my EF 100-400IIL on my R8 will cover the versatile zoom role and my R6ii, EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and teleconverters wil cover my longer prime needs. Sure the other lens is a bit lighter, but it'll still need a tripod and a similar sized case / rucksac / bag to lug it all about. If I had this lens, I would probably be reaching from my 400/2.8 over this lens. I enjoy using it and it gives me top drawer results.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Since Canon only launches a handful of new products each year, any split will likely have the effect of all the new products end up in a top 3.

True, Canon announces about eight lenses a year and about 2-4 cameras. In 2023 I believe three cameras and seven or eight lenses qualify (didn't check, correct me if I´m wrong) so there 11 products altogether which would mean half of the make the top 3 list. Since I still like the idea of having the consumer and pro level, I´d rather suggest to make it the TOP 2 in each case. Only 1/3 of the lenses are mentioned and especially the pro line would leave a lot room for discussion if the rumors are indeed true (R1/ R5mkii/ RF400mm F2.8/ RF 200-500mm F4/ RF 70-150mm F2 and RF 35mm F1.2)