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

[Quack]

I am someone that definitely believes we can save our money for years if those expensive lenses are our priority, but it's ridiculous to suggest you can't be serious until you have bought those lenses.

It's good to believe that you can save around $10,000 US to buy a camera lens, but recent surveys show that over 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I think you can be sure that if they are able to save $10,000 or so over a number of years, that a camera lens will NOT be what they purchase.

Don't mean to pick on your post, but the number of recent posts where CR members (and site admins) seem to have no clue about the economic situation of the majority of people is somewhat disturbing. Those of use who can afford cameras are a minority and very lucky. If you can afford lenses totaling over $2,000 or more, you are very lucky. We shouldn't forget that, in my opinion.

 

[wyotex43n]

I shoot a lot of wildlife and birds and have continued to use my EF 100-400 L II on by R5. Sometimes with an extender. I have thought often about selling it and buying the RF 100-500. But for me it was hard to justify the expense for what I perceive to be fairly minor differences. My initial thought on the the RF200-800 was that the aperture was two slow. However at the price point I may pop for one and quit thinking about the 100-500. As much as I would like a 600 F4 I cannot justify the price point as an amateur. On another note the 24-105 f2.8 looks like a great lens for the other things I do.

 

[Mountain Dave]

I shoot a lot of wildlife and birds and have continued to use my EF 100-400 L II on by R5. Sometimes with an extender. I have thought often about selling it and buying the RF 100-500. But for me it was hard to justify the expense for what I perceive to be fairly minor differences. My initial thought on the the RF200-800 was that the aperture was two slow. However at the price point I may pop for one and quit thinking about the 100-500. As much as I would like a 600 F4 I cannot justify the price point as an amateur. On another note the 24-105 f2.8 looks like a great lens for the other things I do.

I agonized over replacing my EF 100-400L II with the 100-500. It took me quite a while. Once I did it, my only regret was that I didn't do it sooner. It's actually quite a bit better, especially the AF. Color rendition is better too. Plus it's about 1 lb. lighter and another 100mm. Oh, the bokeh is better too. I know the expense is painful.

With today's noise removal tools, and vastly improved AF systems, small apertures are no longer an issue with long lenses. I saw in Wegner's video he used ISO 12,800 sometimes and the images looked great after noise removal. When I'm fairly close to my subjects, I'll use f/8-11 on my 100-500 anyway just to get enough depth of field.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

I agree too but you should follow my masterclass on forum posts.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is "serious" the adjective you mean here? or do you mean "professional"? Are the two supposed to be the same?

I think there are plenty of birders who are "serious" enough to pay $2000 or $3000 for a lens like the 200-800 or the 100-500, but can't justify the price of a decent quality used car.

Surely, you can't be "serious".

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Looks like not with the R100, if I'm understanding this right:

View attachment 214060

I still do not understand why the RF 85 f/1.2 DS does not work when the RF 85 f/1,2 does.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Can you explain? I'm curious what it is about the R100 that is different.

Old firmware

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I've noticed comments regarding the weight of primes making it more difficult to move quickly and of course the problem when a subject is suddenly too close to fit in the frame, while the the ability to zoom out saves the image. I didn't forget minimum focus distance.

The MFD of this lens even at 800 mm is quite amazing.
MFD is the main reason that a lot of folks choose 600 over 800.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's good to believe that you can save around $10,000 US to buy a camera lens

You can find a used one for $4K.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I often listen to Duane's Youtube presentations. They are ok. He has a particular perspective which he is very clear about.

WildLife Alaska is ok too. I like some the gear he reviews, I particularly liked the article he made about the Smallrig AP-10 travel tripod, which I've now purchased too. It's a good call for a very capable travel tripod. However the suplied ball head is useless and the whole tripod won't ever replace a proper heavy duty tripod fro me.

A lot of you tubers are just some guy or girl who's bought stuff and decides that they want to be an "influencer". It doesn't make them an expert.

Most people who are very successful in photography, generally don't want to share their market / pot of gold with anyone. Unless they are teaching others how to be a better photographer in a specific genre. Then they are using Youtube as a market place to get attention, while promoting their primary business.
Youtube is free and there isn't any business model that will pay you an income unless you use the medium as a mule to promote your business. So apart from videos of cats jumping into or off things...everything else on youtube that is of interest is a some business directly or indirectly selling you stuff while using your interests as clik bait. Even facebook and Instagram have become marketing devices.
I did this for a while as a wedding photograher and found that I only bcame popular with other wedding photographers...and then I just ended up training my own competition for free.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Is "serious" the adjective you mean here? or do you mean "professional"? Are the two supposed to be the same?

I think there are plenty of birders who are "serious" enough to pay $2000 or $3000 for a lens like the 200-800 or the 100-500, but can't justify the price of a decent quality used car.

However, an EF500mm f4 LIS mk I isn't much different in price these days.

 

[AlanF]

The MFD of this lens even at 800 mm is quite amazing.
MFD is the main reason that a lot of folks choose 600 over 800.

The quoted mfd of 0.8m is for for the lens at 200mm. At 800mm, it is 3.3m. The maximum magnification of 0.25x for the lens is when it is at 200mm.

 

[AlanF]

Youtube is free and there isn't any business model that will pay you an income unless you use the medium as a mule to promote your business. So apart from videos of cats jumping into or off things...everything else on youtube that is of interest is a some business directly or indirectly selling you stuff while using your interests as clik bait.

I'm no expert on this, but I believe you can make small to large sums of money advertising other peoples businesses https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_uk/howyoutubeworks/product-features/monetization/

 

[neuroanatomist]

I still do not understand why the RF 85 f/1.2 DS does not work when the RF 85 f/1,2 does.

There's no apparent reason. Both lenses were released long before the R100. The 85/1.2 DS works on the R/RP so it's not some sort of limitation with the Digic 8 processor in the R100. I'd also like to know why the RF extenders are incompatible with the R100.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Youtube is free and there isn't any business model that will pay you an income unless you use the medium as a mule to promote your business.

You really don't understand how the internet works, do you?

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Youtube-Channel-Salary

 

[Del Paso]

I'm no expert on this, but I believe you can make small to large sums of money advertising other peoples businesses https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_uk/howyoutubeworks/product-features/monetization/

More clicks: more ads.
More ads: more money.
Nothing's free!

 

[MJ]

This 200-800mm lens surely is an interesting design, but for SERIOUS wildlife applications equipped with a wide open aperture that\'s too narrow. IMHO That\'s a design flaw to market it for wildlife.

Maybe for casual zoo visits or usable in Africa during bad/harsh daylight? But not for those long dark European winters or mid seasons for example. And certainly not during mornings or evenings (when the bulk wildlife is actually the most active).

 

[Quack]

This 200-800mm lens surely is an interesting design, but for SERIOUS wildlife applications equipped with a wide open aperture that\'s too narrow. IMHO That\'s a design flaw to market it for wildlife.

Maybe for casual zoo visits or usable in Africa during bad/harsh daylight? But not for those long dark European winters or mid seasons for example. And certainly not during mornings or evenings (when the bulk wildlife is actually the most active).

Lots of lenses with similar - even slightly less - light gathering ability are used by serious wildlife photographers. I recently saw a program with a pro wildlife photographer that usually shoots at f/11 to ensure the entire animal is in focus. I guess you would have liked a 125mm plus front diameter and twice the weight. To each his/her own.

 

[Desiree Vie]

I wish I had a voice on this matter, but B&H shipped my lens via Fedex on 1/4/2024, to be here 1/6/2024, but it hit Independence KY and it has been stuck there since 1/6/2024 at 1:19am, with NO answers from B&H nor Fedex.
But aside that, I do have the 100-400L v2 and the 400MM f/2.8 and the 500mm f/4. Cost aside, I love both and will not sell. I also bought the 800mm f/11 for reach. When I saw 200-800, not fixed, 6.3-9 or whatever I want around that range, it became an absolute no brainer to swap the 800m f/11 out for it.
I have 2 R6M2 and I have routinely done night sports outdoors at up too 20,000 iso to get what I wanted, and if noisy, run it through Topaz. But I got to say the R6/R6 focus great, handle high ISO great, and the size, weight, small f-stop never entered into the decision.
Try walking around a 3.6 mile race track 8 times in 6 hours with the 400mm and this new lens is a featherweight. Now I wont use it for motorsports, because even the 400mm can be too much, I shot more on the 70-200.
To whomever spoke of enthusiasts will spend $ on a lens they want and maybe not a used car or such? My total sum of equipment and lenses is over double what I paid for my car and I am not a paid professional. I am retired and having the time of my life with these. Sports, concerts, weddings, retirements, anniversaries and when free birds too.

 

[EricN]

It's good to believe that you can save around $10,000 US to buy a camera lens, but recent surveys show that over 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I think you can be sure that if they are able to save $10,000 or so over a number of years, that a camera lens will NOT be what they purchase.

Don't mean to pick on your post, but the number of recent posts where CR members (and site admins) seem to have no clue about the economic situation of the majority of people is somewhat disturbing. Those of use who can afford cameras are a minority and very lucky. If you can afford lenses totaling over $2,000 or more, you are very lucky. We shouldn't forget that, in my opinion.

It's about priorities. I can almost guarantee I make less money than anyone here, but I choose my priorities. For example, I will never have children. Will everyone do like me? No. CAN everyone do like me? Yes! I am certainly not lucky.