A bit more information on the upcoming RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS

[neuroanatomist]

About the "L" classification, Canon has always been very clear about what L means: L only means that the glass is treated with Fluorite coating. It says nothing about the IQ, the weather-sealing etc.
If this lens has no fluorite coating, it is not L.

Lol, no. Just…no.

First of all it’s a fluorine coating , not a fluorite coating. Fluorite is calcium fluoride (CaF₂), the mineral grown as a crystal and used to make lens elements. Fluorine is actually a reactive gas, what Canon uses for lens coatings are really polyfluorinated alkyls (Teflon and other non-stick coatings used in cookware are in that chemical class).

But more importantly, though modern L lenses have a fluorine coating, that’s not what defines an L lens. The first lens with a fluorine coating was the EF 70-300L in 2010, and L series lenses have been around for >40 years.

The L stands for Luxury, not fLuorine. Canon has stated, "These lenses use special optical technologies [such as] Ultra-low Dispersion UD glass, Super Low Dispersion glass, Fluorite elements, and Aspherical elements to truly push the optical envelope."

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I guess we can expect a DO front element and it's not L for this same reason (like the 400/4 DO).

Canon has not done that since the first 400 DO.
They moved the DO element to the middle.
DO corrects for CA so expensive corrective elements are not needed.

 

[gbasilemc]

The 100-500 is 700mm f/10 with a 1.4x which is already less aperture than 800mm f/9 of this new lens. Also, there's the hassle of putting on the TC.

thanks for clarifying

 

[zarathu]

Hope it lives up to your expectations. The early shots that DPR put up weren't that stunningly sharp.

For many of us the comparison will be between the current RF 800 f/11. Many of us have that lens, and don’t want to switch to the 200-800 with a reduction in IQ just to have ranges we don’t currently use. Yes, I recently missed a shot of an eagle because I had switched out of my 800 and back to a 24-105 to get some close up shots, but that is rare. Of course, now I have switched from the 24-105 to a 24-240, and could have probably gotten the eagle with cropping to 9 mp(from 45).

 

[AlanF]

About the "L" classification, Canon has always been very clear about what L means: L only means that the glass is treated with Fluorite coating. It says nothing about the IQ, the weather-sealing etc.
If this lens has no fluorite coating, it is not L. Doesn't mean it cannot be well engineered.
For some reasons, it looks like Canon doesn't add fluorite coating to DO glass, so I guess we can expect a DO front element and it's not L for this same reason (like the 400/4 DO).

Fluorite is not a coating for lenses, it is a glass-like material, calcium fluoride (CaF2), which the lens is made of, expensively. You are mixing up it with fluorine coating for lens, which is a fluorocarbon like teflon like you have on non-stick pans. It is confusing.

 

[AlanF]

For many of us the comparison will be between the current RF 800 f/11. Many of us have that lens, and don’t want to switch to the 200-800 with a reduction in IQ just to have ranges we don’t currently use. Yes, I recently missed a shot of an eagle because I had switched out of my 800 and back to a 24-105 to get some close up shots, but that is rare. Of course, now I have switched from the 24-105 to a 24-240, and could have probably gotten the eagle with cropping to 9 mp(from 45).

The 800/11is too restricted in use for my purposes, but it is sufficiently light and cheap I can take it along with my 100-500 or 100-400. However, the versatility of a zoom and its short mfd win out every time for me. I'll be getting a 200-800 and if it is better than the 800/11, the prime goes. If it isn't, it gets returned.

 

[Dragon]

The 800/11is too restricted in use for my purposes, but it is sufficiently light and cheap I can take it along with my 100-500 or 100-400. However, the versatility of a zoom and its short mfd win out every time for me. I'll be getting a 200-800 and if it is better than the 800/11, the prime goes. If it isn't, it gets returned.

The MTF chart looks better than the 800/11. F/9 vs f/11 would account for some of that, but the difference looks like more than the dispersion gain. For my use with hummingbirds, if it is as good as the prime, I will keep because I will see a significant gain from the shorter MFD. If it is better, I will be delighted.

 

[Dragon]

Exactly what I thought, when I read about this lens. I wouldn't say that the aperture is a nonissue, but if you are not able to spend the money for a big tele prime, you have no other choice.



I think you will be disappointed then. The 200-800 starts at F6.3, so I guess it won't be F6.3 at 600mm and then drops all the way from F6.3 to F9 from 600mm to 800mm. More likely the aperture will already be F7.1 or F8 at 600mm.

Yes, f/8 from 500-600 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-200-800mm-F6-3-9-IS-USM-Lens.aspx and read down through the review. If you are shooting near MFD, you can use anything much faster than that and keep your whole subject in focus unless you favor shooting ants. F/9 to f/11 is about where you need to be for hummingbirds at 600-800 mm when focused near MFD.

 

[EricN]

Yes, f/8 from 500-600 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-200-800mm-F6-3-9-IS-USM-Lens.aspx and read down through the review. If you are shooting near MFD, you can use anything much faster than that and keep your whole subject in focus unless you favor shooting ants. F/9 to f/11 is about where you need to be for hummingbirds at 600-800 mm when focused near MFD.

Do you notice this:

200mm = f/6.3
300-400mm = f/7.1
500-600mm = f/8.0
800mm = f/9.0

what is 400-500 and 600-800?

 

[AlanF]

Do you notice this:

200mm = f/6.3
300-400mm = f/7.1
500-600mm = f/8.0
800mm = f/9.0

what is 400-500 and 600-800?

It’s f/8 from 455 to 637mm - https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-200-800mm-f6-3-9-review/

 

[AlanF]

Yes, f/8 from 500-600 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-200-800mm-F6-3-9-IS-USM-Lens.aspx and read down through the review. If you are shooting near MFD, you can use anything much faster than that and keep your whole subject in focus unless you favor shooting ants. F/9 to f/11 is about where you need to be for hummingbirds at 600-800 mm when focused near MFD.

You don’t get humming birds outside of the Americas so the lens is clearly not targeted for elsewhere.

 

[Dragon]

Do you notice this:

200mm = f/6.3
300-400mm = f/7.1
500-600mm = f/8.0
800mm = f/9.0

what is 400-500 and 600-800?

Did you read the article?. Brian said he would fill in the rest of the numbers when he got his hands on a copy of the lens. The actual aperture of variable aperture zooms is a continuous function and the camera just reports the nearest 1/3 or 1/2 stop value at any given focal length. Note that the change function is continuous, but not necessarily linear because multiple zoom elements move at different rates so the aperture change function can be a pretty complex curve but almost always with decreasing aperture size (i.e. increasing numerical value) as the FL increases. The above numbers suggest that this lens has a plateau between 300 and 400mm and another between 500 and 600mm with more rapid change between 200 and 300mm, between 400 and 500, and again between 600 and 800mm. That does not mean that those plateaus are flat, but rather that the aperture stays within a 1/3 stop window.

 

[Dragon]

You don’t get humming birds outside of the Americas so the lens is clearly not targeted for elsewhere.

You could have a go at raising some. They are delightful little creatures. Below with the R7 and 800 f/11.

 

[AlanF]

You could have a go at raising some. They are delightful little creatures. Below with the R7 and 800 f/11.

View attachment 213025

Very nice detail. I have shot a few in my time but with the 5DIV + 100-400mm II, about a third of the resolving power of your 800mm on the R7.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You could have a go at raising some. They are delightful little creatures. Below with the R7 and 800 f/11.

View attachment 213025

I would imagine that a shot like that would be far easier with a zoom lens.
Plus, the MFD is half even at 800 mm.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Very nice detail. I have shot a few in my time but with the 5DIV + 100-400mm II, about a third of the resolving power of your 800mm on the R7.View attachment 213028View attachment 213029View attachment 213030View attachment 213031View attachment 213032View attachment 213033View attachment 213034View attachment 213035

Quite interesting bokeh

 

[Del Paso]

Very nice detail. I have shot a few in my time but with the 5DIV + 100-400mm II, about a third of the resolving power of your 800mm on the R7.View attachment 213028View attachment 213029View attachment 213030View attachment 213031View attachment 213032View attachment 213033View attachment 213034View attachment 213035

Wonderful birds, wonderful pictures!

 

[Del Paso]

You could have a go at raising some. They are delightful little creatures. Below with the R7 and 800 f/11.

View attachment 213025

Beautiful!

 

[Click]

Beautiful shots, guys!

 

[Dragon]

I would imagine that a shot like that would be far easier with a zoom lens.
Plus, the MFD is half even at 800 mm.

Yes, the MFD was the top reason I preordered the zoom. I often use the 1.4 extender on the 800 f/11 just to get "closer" when, in fact, I am having to stand back to stay behind the MFD of the prime. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6L, but its MFD is the same as the RF f/11, so no gain for the application other than it is a little sharper, but a LOT heavier. I use an Olympus EE-1 red dot sight on the flash shoe for targeting, so the zoom is not a big deal for finding the subject, but the MFD is huge.