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

[Desiree Vie]

I bought the 800mm f/11 when it came out. Returned it in 3 days because I had issues with the narrow viewing angle. I could not find BIF. Two years later, I had seen enough reviews to pique my interest, so I bought it again. I forced myself to learn it's strengths and not any weakness, and have taken 1000's of amazing photos I could not get with my 500mm f/4.0, do to size, weight etc.

When I saw this zoom talked about, I said, I would like it, variable aperture etc, light, smaller etc. Sadly I was thinking to sell off the 800mm to help the cost, which appears to be more than expected. I will probably still do so. No hood maybe? No tripod foot maybe? No issues, buy one from Amazon.

All this article states is 200-800 f/6.3-f/9. around $2000 USD. The is no concrete description, photo, color, or any details. This is all assumed. And if you do not know what assume has been described as, many have already fit the first three letters. I thank our website authors for letting us know about it. I saw within mere hours, you-tubers telling us everything you might want to know, and they do not know shit yet either.

Lastly, as a member since near Canon Rumors beginning, I have read way too many people claiming Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic and others, do it better, faster, lighter, cheaper and so forth. Why did you choose Canon? Why did you stick with it? How many cameras and lenses do you own? Buy, sell, trade, gift away, what do you have now and what did you have before? How many years since you began this journey? What do you do with them? Fun, work, money, career? Who knows those answers beside you, and NO ONE CARES.

I bought my first Canon, AE-1 in 1976. I have had countless lenses, bodies, and played the upgrade game since. If you think Sony or Nikon are better, go get one and shut up. If you think Sigma or Tamron or other lenses are better/cheaper, buy them and shut up. My current group is 2 cameras and 9 lenses, ALL CANON. I like them. I have paid a king's ransom for them and on my way to donating kidneys to get more, but I enjoy them, I do this as a hobby and get paid for photos.

The whining here that it is not what you want is ridiculous, asinine and childish. If Canon makes a new product and sends it to select people to test it, break it etc and report back is this the one? Are you one of them? If not, Canon is not listening to you. Statistically if has appeared that their choices so far have been pretty good. So shut up about what others have, make or do. Go buy it and spew on a fan site for that manufacturer.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Genuine question: how is that measured? Given you can't mount EF and RF teleconverters on the same lens. Is it possible RF TCs are optimised for different things given the lenses they mount on include designs that have no equivalent in the EF system (like the 100-400).

You can actually, the EF tc would go before the EF to RF adapter and the RF converter would go after it, although I've not tried it.

However, the Canon supplied MFT charts tell us a clear picture as to the resolution degredation from various lenses and teleconverters. Canon have provided EF mk III and RF mk1 MFT charts for each supported lens. In the case of the EF 400mm f2.8 LIS III and EF 600mm f4 LIS III, their RF RF versions are the same lens but with a built in EF to RF adapter. So it's an easy comparison between the MFT's using teleconverters one the EF version and the RF versions.
According to the MFT charts, the Mk II lenses were a tad sharper than the mkIII / RF version. The mkIII TC's are uniformly and consistently a tad sharper than their RF versions too.
The switchable 1.4TC in the 200-400mm f4 LIS is actually slightly worse than using a bare 1.4xTC mkIIIas a plug on option. Another suprise is the new RF 800mm f5.6 LIS (which is a RF400mm f2.8 LIS with an integrated custom 2xTC) fares worse in the MFT charts than the native RF400mm f2.8 LIS with an RF 2x TC.

 

[bbasiaga]

The only reason to buy it is you need that focal length. Or want lighter lenses. I'm pleased with the RF100-400 as it's so much more portable than traditional 100-400. If 200-800 is not bigger nor heavier than competitors' 200-600/1xx-600/1xx-500. I see this as an absolute win.

An affordable zoom can reach 700~800mm f9....It's a win for RF tele users.

I don't know that it can be lighter, given its going to be longer as well. That will drive up the size of the front element a bit. But it can still be 'light' for its size.

Looks very interesting, but couldn't be a normal WHITE canon lens??

I am the only one who thinks this black designs are very ugly?

That's just a photo of the f/11 lens. No idea what the new one is going to look like. I personally like the look of the black lenses, like the 100 macro and many of the EF Ls

Difference with the big whites, is I can still shoot at 600 at F/4 and not a ridiculous ISO of 10,000 lol

What's ridiculous is that 10,000ISO is about as ridiculous today as 800-1600 just a couple of generations ago. And 25600 is only as ridiculous as 3200-6400. Maybe slightly more ridiculous on the R5, but R6 is no problem. Its approaching the point where ISO is almost a non-factor with the right noise reduction workflow, most of which is one click in many software packages today and is amazing at preserving detail.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Genuine question: how is that measured? Given you can't mount EF and RF teleconverters on the same lens. Is it possible RF TCs are optimised for different things given the lenses they mount on include designs that have no equivalent in the EF system (like the 100-400).

You can mount EF and RF teleconverters on the same lens, if that lens is an EF lens and if you use a modified EF-RF mount adapter. I have done so with the EF 600/4 II, testing both EF and RF 1.4x and 2x TCs independently and stacked. I found that the EF 1.4xIII and RF 1.4x gave equivalent optical performance, while the EF 2xIII was slightly better than the RF 2x (the latter was optically similar to the two 1.4x TCs stacked).

I suppose it's possible that RF TCs are optimized for RF lenses in a way that EF TCs are not. Certainly the designs of the RF extenders are different than those of the EF extenders.

 

[roby17269]

Interesting. You would like it not much bigger than the 800 f/11, but you don't want an extending lens. Sounds like magic. Remember you don't have to collapse the 800 f/11 and then you don't have to concern yourself with the extending action. But do give it a serious try out. You can get some amazing images with that lens.

Storage is constrained at home, so keeping the 800 11 extended is not an easy option.
The rumored lens does not have to be much bigger than the 800 11, magic or not. Canon has shown the ability to make lenses smaller than expected (as well as bigger than expected). So we will see.
I will be patient on this one and evaluate a buy v no-buy decision when the specs will be officially released. E.g. if it turns out to be a 2/300-600 rather than something-800, then it will be no buy, since it won't take the place of my beloved 100-500. If it will be a something-800 with acceptable (to me) size and reasonable MFD then it will be a buy trading in the 800 11.
In any case not a lens which I need. 800mm is something I use very rarely because of where I live. So it's unlikely the 800 11 will get a proper workout. The jury is still out on the 800 11 out of fairness. Maybe it's me. I am one of the ones that are not happy with what the 24-240 delivers at 240mm. That one got used and the jury is closed on it. That lens will go as soon as I get the 35 1.2L. Now that is a lens I NEED

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

All camera gear was in the same room in the same cabin before we went out. And the fogging problem inside the RF 100-500 occurred first after been outside for a couple of hours. In my experience, external zoom is just more vulnerable to dust and moisture.

Thanks for the information, I'm not sure why it would do that after a couple of hours.

 

[Dragon]

The RF 800 f/11 uses a 95mm filter, so this could be the same or bigger.

I got a perfectly good hood for my 800/11 for $15 on Amazon.

Ditto, but the nice flocked ones from Canon are $55. OTOH, you can get a flocking kit for less than $10.

 

[Dragon]

Same price range as the competitors, but without weather sealing and with poorer build quality.
Seems also to me that Canon ends up further and further behind.

A wildlife lens without weather sealing is not a wildlife lens in my opinion.
(And I would have preferred a little extra weight to get internal zoom.)

And what wildlife lenses do you own?

 

[AlanF]

The old do Canon does not stack up even against the old 500pf, which remains a great lens especially at the $2k price point where it now sells.

I was shooting at the same time Nikon D850/D500 + 500/5.6 PF and the 5DSR/R5 + EF 400mm f/4 DO ii ± 1.4xTC. My DO was just as good as my 500 PF. What's your direct experience of the two lenses? And my RF 100-500mm is only a tad less than the 500 PF, if not basically indistinguishable in IQ.

 

[AlanF]

You will not regret it. It is versatile and super sharp. And it works great with (both) teleconverters.

You also used the Nikon D850 + 500 PF. How do you find it compares with the RF 100-500mm?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Genuine question: how is that measured?

I have not heard that at all.
What I have heard is that the version 2 EF big whites are more sharp with teleconverters than the version 3 and the RF lenses are based on the version 3 lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The old do Canon does not stack up even against the old 500pf, which remains a great lens especially at the $2k price point where it now sells.

Maybe true but the version 2 is a lot better and a lot more expensive.

 

[Dragon]

I bought the 800mm f/11 when it came out. Returned it in 3 days because I had issues with the narrow viewing angle. I could not find BIF. Two years later, I had seen enough reviews to pique my interest, so I bought it again. I forced myself to learn it's strengths and not any weakness, and have taken 1000's of amazing photos I could not get with my 500mm f/4.0, do to size, weight etc.

An Olympus ee-1 red dot sight attached to the hot shoe eliminates the narrow field of view problem. If you get good with it on an R5, you don't even need to look through the VF. Just aim and shoot and the AF will do the rest.

 

[Dragon]

I have not heard that at all.
What I have heard is that the version 2 EF big whites are more sharp with teleconverters than the version 3 and the RF lenses are based on the version 3 lenses.

The charts a TDP completely support that observation. I am hanging on to my EF 800 F/5.6 because it holds up with TCs considerably better than the RF 800 f/5.6 which is already a 400 f/2.8 with a built-in TC. The new series lenses are lighter, but not sharper.

 

[bereninga]

My guess is:

1. White lens w/ green ring.
2. Weather-sealed.
3. With hood and pouch.
4. Equal or slightly slower than f/7.1 at 500mm.
5. USM and IS.
6. Lightweight and similar size to RF 800/11.
7. Internal zoom.
8. Teleconverter compatibility.
9. Tripod foot (non arca-swiss duh lol )

 

[neuroanatomist]

An Olympus ee-1 red dot sight attached to the hot shoe eliminates the narrow field of view problem. If you get good with it on an R5, you don't even need to look through the VF. Just aim and shoot and the AF will do the rest.

I used a red/green dot rifle sight mounted via a Weaver hotshoe adapter when I got my 600/4 (this was before the Olympus red dot sight came out). It worked well as a training tool, after a few months I no longer needed it.

Most supertele users know the simple trick of mounting the lens hood with the thumbscrew at the top, then you can use the hotshoe and the thumbscrew as a sight.

 

[AlanF]

Maybe true but the version 2 is a lot better and a lot more expensive.

I take it he means the DO ii as it is pointless comparing the 500 PF with an obsolete lens has been superseded by the ii.

 

[AlanF]

This will compliment the 100-500 lens I have nicely and should be good for flight shots when one wants a little extra reach.

800mm for BIF is OK for distant slow moving birds. 500mm is far better for fast birds, at least for me, and I am willing to bet the existing RF 100-500 will focus faster than a cheaper f/9 lens. I would use 800mm, as I do now for the RF 800/11, mainly for perched birds.

 

[rbr]

My guess is:

1. White lens w/ green ring.
2. Weather-sealed.
3. With hood and pouch.
4. Equal or slightly slower than f/7.1 at 500mm.
5. USM and IS.
6. Lightweight and similar size to RF 800/11.
7. Internal zoom.
8. Teleconverter compatibility.
9. Tripod foot (non arca-swiss duh lol )

If this lens wants to compete with the Sony and Nikon x00-600 f/6.3 lenses you will probably be right about much of this. It certainly won't be internal zoom and be the same size and weight as the 800/f11 though. If it's any good, it will be a big seller for Canon.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I take it he means the DO ii as it is pointless comparing the 500 PF with an obsolete lens has been superseded by the ii.

For $2K?
That is the used price of the first one.

Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM EF-Mount Lens {Gel}

The EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens from Canon utilizes multi-layer diffractive optical (DO) lens technology to correct chromatic aberrations, substantially reduce lens size and provide excellent overall telephoto image quality. This offers an

www.keh.com