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

[docsmith]

That would be my rank order, as well.

The 24-105/2.8 finally resolves the conundrum of choosing between range and speed for a standard zoom, and is simply a brilliant lens.

The 100-300/2.8 is also stellar and pair perfectly with the 24-105/2.8 for event shooting. It also takes extenders very well.

I was not very interested in the 10-20/4 at launch. But thinking about the size/weight from the 11-24, I became more interested. I just packed the 11-24/4 for a trip, that clinched it for me – I’ll order the 10-20/4 in the near future.

Conundrum is a good word for this. Especially for those of us that have well developed kits, I think it could be argued that any new lens should solve problems/conundrums we have. I agree, the 24-105 f/2.8 does this. It solved several problems I had. So, it is now in my kit.

The 200-800.....what I see it doing well is competing with the super-tele zoom market that has been created and being a great option for those that have not yet invested in a Big White or other "L" series lens (100-500). For those of us that have those, the 200-800 actually is creating a conundrum. Do we sacrifice ultimate IQ and AF speed for flexibility? As I have an EF 500 f/4 and EF 100-400 II....I am trying to work through how often I would use it to see if I can justify its place in my kit. Having played with it for a couple of days, it is a good lens. I have good photos with it. But the IQ and AF were better with the 500 f/4 (as you would expect).

Anyway, even after playing with the 200-800 more, it is a good lens. It should compete very well in the ~$2k super-tele zoom market. But not the best of Canon in 2023. I'd have it 5th or 6th.

 

[AlanF]

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.

Most of us who regularly post on the bird threads don't have a 600/4 or 400/2.8 so you are asking for trouble!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Seems like owners like me of the RF100-500 have no big reason to sell and replace.

I think that was what Canon was trying to accomplish.
100-500 f/4.5-7.1 and RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 are very different lenses.
I see many people with both.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Most of us who regularly post on the bird threads don't have a 600/4 or 400/2.8 so you are asking for trouble!

To be fair, a used original EF 600 f/4 is not so expensive if you do not mind lugging it around.
The EF 400 f/2.8 is still pretty expensive.
Although, there are plenty of serious birders with lighter gear.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Jan Wegener complained about the AF of the 200-800 on the R7. Do you have any experience of this?

He and Duade complain about the R7 AF in general.
It is better to follow the WildLife Alaska YouTuber.
He is not as much of a birder though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

The zooms are great but we still need more primes.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

As an RF 800 f/11 owner myself, I resemble that remark.
The same goes with the 24-70 f/2.8 that I never would have bought if there were an RF 24-105 f/2.8.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Most of us who regularly post on the bird threads don't have a 600/4 or 400/2.8 so you are asking for trouble!

A little bit of topic: what's the size limit for posting pics in threads on this forum here? I´ve tried posting pics (EOS R, 30 MP, JPEG, edited in Lightroom) and it always tells me they are too big. I have downsizing them (30% in LR) but it still shows. I'm probably doing something wrong, but I don't know what exactly :/

 

[P-visie]

He's in Mongolia!

Is that a Canon punishment for spreading rumors?

 

[Bonich]

He and Duade complain about the R7 AF in general.
It is better to follow the WildLife Alaska YouTuber.
He is not as much of a birder though.

Why not to follow the best?

 

[AlanF]

A little bit of topic: what's the size limit for posting pics in threads on this forum here? I´ve tried posting pics (EOS R, 30 MP, JPEG, edited in Lightroom) and it always tells me they are too big. I have downsizing them (30% in LR) but it still shows. I'm probably doing something wrong, but I don't know what exactly :/

Keep downsizing until they fit - that's what I do. Usually 4000x3000 fit easily. Please do post.

 

[AlanF]

To be fair, a used original EF 600 f/4 is not so expensive if you do not mind lugging it around.
The EF 400 f/2.8 is still pretty expensive.
Although, there are plenty of serious birders with lighter gear.

I do mind lugging it around! The weight of those is impossible for me but not for younger stronger people. I'm also an opportunistic shooter and need to be mobile.

 

[Quack]

Most of us who regularly post on the bird threads don't have a 600/4 or 400/2.8 so you are asking for trouble!

Yes, as a serious birder, I have neither. And, yes, a person can be a serious bird photographer without being wealthy enough to afford those types of lenses. The Sigma, and Tamron lenses that go up to 600mm are essentially the same weight and are carried about by many photographers. Competing against these "up to 600mm" lenses from Sigma and Tamron seems to be the market that Canon is going after, especially for Full Frame users who may find the 100-500mm a bit too short for birding.

 

[Quack]

He and Duade complain about the R7 AF in general.
It is better to follow the WildLife Alaska YouTuber.
He is not as much of a birder though.

It's better not to follow anyone on YouTube or the internet. Certainly not just one person or even 2 or 3. Sure, you get some info - but the more the better, as long as they are clearly pros who know the subject. But it's always better to find out for yourself. I know not everyone lives where rentals are possible, or has a camera store with a good return policy, but your own experience is really the only thing that matters in the end. People's reliance on the internet - where so many influencers are biased or just not particularly competent, is rather sad.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, as a serious birder, I have neither. And, yes, a person can be a serious bird photographer without being wealthy enough to afford those types of lenses. The Sigma, and Tamron lenses that go up to 600mm are essentially the same weight and are carried about by many photographers. Competing against these "up to 600mm" lenses from Sigma and Tamron seems to be the market that Canon is going after, especially for Full Frame users who may find the 100-500mm a bit too short for birding.

Agreed. I'm fortunate enough to have a 600/4 II and most of my bird shooting is done at 840mm f/5.6, so I have no real interest in the 200-800. But the 150-600 zooms were quite popular on Canon DSLRs, and that was a segment that Canon ignored for a long time. Seems like they came up with a very effective answer (answers, given the 600/11 and 800/11). I expect the main reason they never tackled that range was the f/5.6 AF limitation, that 3rd parties skirted with f/6.3 lenses that still worked.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It's better not to follow anyone on YouTube or the internet. Certainly not just one person or even 2 or 3. Sure, you get some info - but the more the better, as long as they are clearly pros who know the subject. But it's always better to find out for yourself. I know not everyone lives where rentals are possible, or has a camera store with a good return policy, but your own experience is really the only thing that matters in the end. People's reliance on the internet - where so many influencers are biased or just not particularly competent, is rather sad.

I recently watched the Jan Wegener video of the RF 200-800mm lens. After a while, I quit watching because he mentions "buy my presets" or "with my presets you get stunning results"... in the end, he really just wants to sell his stuff... first and last time I'll watch him...

I have never based a purchase decision on reviews from YouTubers... I also don´t follow YouTuber and hardly watch any of them. I purchased two lenses because members of camera forums raved about them. Among them, the RF 100-400mm (Neuro/ AlanF and Entoman et al highly recommended it) and the 85mm F2 (CR members as well a canon shooter from a German website). And you what: no regrets at all! The opposite, I love both lenses!

 

[TheRealUnfocused]

I recently watched the Jan Wegener video of the RF 200-800mm lens. After a while, I quit watching because he mentions "buy my presets" or "with my presets you get stunning results"... in the end, he really just wants to sell his stuff... first and last time I'll watch him...

People do have to earn a living. I find the commercials on You Tube videos less annoying than some of the popups on forums.

Wegener is a good photographer and I've found his advice on things like setting up autofocus for birds quite helpful. Like everything, you just have to be selective.

 

[TheRealUnfocused]

... 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...

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.

Those evil geniuses at Canon are so ruthless that they keep releasing products people want to buy. It's almost as though they are trying to make a business out of selling lenses and cameras.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Keep downsizing until they fit - that's what I do. Usually 4000x3000 fit easily. Please do post.

thx for the reply. I'll keep trying and would to post some images on the weekend.

 

[RaPhoto]

thx for the reply. I'll keep trying and would to post some images on the weekend.

I get a message saying 10MB is the upload limit for larger files. So, check your file size.