Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS coming on November 2, 2023

[EOS 4 Life]

Such is the state of ILC camera systems. This should compete well with the Sony and Nikon similar offerings, and is at the same price point. Be interesting to see how it reviews compared to the Sigma 160-600 Sport and contemporary models as well. All of which are in the same price range. The 100-400 RF model is out there at less than half the price, and is a great performer. The 600 and 800 f/11 primes are also less money and great performers. This 200-800 looks to fill a gap between those consumer models and the 'big whites'.


Brian

It would still leave quite a gap.
A bunch of DO primes like Nikon could make up for that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If my memory serves, we are talking over twice the price of any other non-L lens ever, so there is at least a possibility.

About double, unless you factor in inflation.. The TS-E 45/2.8 and TS-E 90/2.8 (original, non-L) launched at $1100 in 1991 – that’s $2500 today adjusted for inflation. The MP-E 65 currently lists for $1050.

 

[Shooterdad]

All Canon RF consumer lenses are at the same level. The highly praised 800/11 is actually not as sharp as 24-240 at 240mm, when shooting at the same frame of target. It's not L, then don't expect L quality.

 

[scyrene]

Imagine: with a 2x extender we'd get a 400-1.600mm lens I must go to the Masai Mara again within the next years

Ha! I have found the 800 f/11 pretty good with the 1.4x, although as usual, a 2x degrades performance a fair bit. Ok in extremis though.

 

[scyrene]

A zoom will provide by far better minimum focus distance (ask the dirty cheap but performant RF 100-400)
Extender? I would not think about using one at this lens, but I expect them to be supported by the lens.

The extenders work surprisingly well with the 100-400, so if this is as good (and for the expected price, hopefully it will be at least as good), that could be a useful setup.

 

[john1970]

Well, then it would no longer be considered "affordable," and we'd continue to hear complaints that Canon only makes cheap consumer garbage, or super expensive pro lenses.

I would have considered that a mid-grade lens which is still significantly less costly that the big whites. Just a difference of opinion and nothing more. I really hope they give the lens a USM focusing instead of STM.

 

[scyrene]

...my oh my--2K USD descibed as \'affordable\'...

But 2K as 'affordable'...

Reminds me of the old joke that I first heard as an explanation (of sorts) for certain aspects of thermodynamics (in a p-chem class):

An old guy was asked if he was happily married. His response?

"Compared to what?"

My oh my.

I mean it is obviously a subjective term, but before the RF system, Canon offered no lenses longer than 400mm for under this price so... it's not unreasonable imo.

 

[AJ]

Imagine: with a 2x extender we'd get a 400-1.600mm lens I must go to the Masai Mara again within the next years

Sheesh, with that much magnification I could shoot the Masai Mara from my balcony here in Canada.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Where would this one fit in? Is it the start of the mid range?

Good question. The 800/11 is 2/3-stop slower, so all else being equal that cost increase is commensurate.

I think it will be built like the current RF consumer long lenses. The rumored price seems high to me. We’ll see.

 

[danfaz]

That article has been updated:
UPDATE: October 24, 17h48 EDT – another source validated that the lens is real but could not remember if it was a 200-800mm or a 300-800mm.

 

[Jethro]

That article has been updated:
UPDATE: October 24, 17h48 EDT – another source validated that the lens is real but could not remember if it was a 200-800mm or a 300-800mm.

300-800mm is interesting - it would then form some sort of logical combo with the 100-400mm, and presumably reduce the weight? And might make me think about selling my 600/11 and upgrading.

Q: does anyone recall patents for these lengths? Update: yes there is (for both 200-800 and 300-800, although they are 5.6 not 6.3 at the wide end):

Canon Patent Application: More Super Telephoto Zooms

Canon has published a series of 3 patent applications at the same time dealing with super-telephoto zooms. I know we have recently covered a similar patent app

www.canonrumors.com

 

[EricN]

For me, at that price point it has to offer a lot more than the RF 600mm/ 800mm F11 lenses. It should have a...
- faster AF motor
- weather sealing to some degree
- full AF capabilities (unlike the 600/800mm where the AF only works in the center square)

I don't expect it to have weather-sealing...

 

[fogleman]

Finally a lens announcement I'm interested in! I do bird photography and I've been using the 100-500 for almost 3 years now, which is 700 f/10 with the 1.4x, so 800 f/9 is compelling. Just hope it's sharp. I wonder what the minimum focus distance will be. Excited to learn more.

 

[fogleman]

An interesting lens. However, I would have been much more interested in a 200-800 mm f5.6-f8 L lens for $4-5K. Still might buy this one, but only if it does not come with STM. Frankly, I am a bit disappointed.

You're that disappointed over 1/3 of a stop?

L would be nice I suppose, but it's hard to judge the non-L until we get more details.

Actually the more I think about what you propose the more I kind of agree. I'm spoiled by the quality of the 100-500 and I'll be disappointed if/when this non-L doesn't live up to it in terms of IQ, focusing speed, MFD, etc. I wonder if 200-800 mm f5.6-f8 L would actually be doable at $4-5K price range though.

 

[LeBlobe]

Could they lower price of RF 100-500mm? haha, i was gonna buy it soon. I'm guessing the 800 wont have good close focus capabilities like the f11.

 

[Marphoto]

At this price it will likely be STM and more like the f/11 lenses. Remember canon has the tremendous 100-500 f/5.6-7.1 L and likely wouldn’t want to undermine sales.

 

[Marphoto]

You're that disappointed over 1/3 of a stop?

L would be nice I suppose, but it's hard to judge the non-L until we get more details.

Actually the more I think about what you propose the more I kind of agree. I'm spoiled by the quality of the 100-500 and I'll be disappointed if/when this non-L doesn't live up to it in terms of IQ, focusing speed, MFD, etc. I wonder if 200-800 mm f5.6-f8 L would actually be doable at $4-5K price range though.

Unlikely that one could produce such a zoom at that price/range. Nikon’s 800 f/6.3 is a spectacular prime and runs $6k.

 

[snappy604]

MF'rs.. sigh... I'm going to Costa Rica end of Nov.. doubt it'll arrive by then... ... personal grumble on timing aside.. looking forward to this!

 

[fogleman]

Well, I doubt the form factor will be like that of the f/11 lenses. This one is a zoom and not fixed-aperture. Might make more sense to compare it to the 100-400? Or maybe it'll look like something different altogether.

 

[Dragon]

About double, unless you factor in inflation.. The TS-E 45/2.8 and TS-E 90/2.8 (original, non-L) launched at $1100 in 1991 – that’s $2500 today adjusted for inflation. The MP-E 65 currently lists for $1050.

I had forgotten the the tilt shift lenses were not officially L lenses in spite of the fact the optics are better than many actual L lenses. Also spaced the MP-E. On rethought, the 400mm DO's (both versions) were very expensive non-L lenses in spite of being painted white and yes, they had weather sealing. Maybe the 200-800 will have a green ring to carry on that tradition since Canon has long had a policy that DO and L do not fit in the same bucket.