Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon enters a new era of inexpensive reach with the 200-800mm. Combine this with an R7 and you can place more pixels on far-away targets than any other camera system that is in the financial reach of mere mortals. The RF 200-800 is bound to be an instant favorite with the birding community. We’ve assembled

See full article...

 

[GreenViper]

This review was quite informative with comparisons with the Sony 200-600 and Canon 100-500 even if your French isn't up to much!

Looks slightly better than the Sony at comparable focal lengths and not far off the 100-500 as indicated by MTFs
Good job - I have an early pre-order and selling my 100-500 to cover the cost! My rationale is that my 100-500 spends nearly all it's time with the 1.4x attached for birds and I think I can manage the extra weight and size for the extra reach and light plus the ability to use the full range of the zoom

 

[AlanF]

I've read all the written previews by those who have handled it directly, but I haven't looked at the YouTubes.
I'm a little worried about the sharpness at 800mm, although the 1.6x extra length over the 500 should outweigh it by far - 60% extra reach really boosts the resolution and contrast can be improved in post. I hope to check it out myself by beginning of January if I got my order in earlier enough. The crucial test for me is it against the 100-500mm with 2xTC.

"it delivers sharp results throughout most of the zoom range, although 800mm sharpness and contrast could be a bit better in initial tests."
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm-review

"The major deterrent for serious action photography is absolute image quality at the 800mm setting,"
https://www.techradar.com/cameras/camera-lenses/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm-review

"Nonetheless, the images came out crispy, with plenty of detail and with next to no color aberrations if you disregard color noise of the sensor. Of course, it is not on the same level as the brilliant RF 100-500mm f/4,5-7,1 L IS USM"
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/ultim...eview-new-canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-usm-646982

 

[Fischer]

I've read all the written previews by those who have handled it directly, but I haven't looked at the YouTubes.
I'm a little worried about the sharpness at 800mm, although the 1.6x extra length over the 500 should outweigh it by far - 60% extra reach really boosts the resolution and contrast can be improved in post. I hope to check it out myself by beginning of January if I got my order in earlier enough. The crucial test for me is it against the 100-500mm with 2xTC.

Pantagonia video review mentions this too. But also that it depends on absolute distance. Looking forward to your take. I'm waiting in the shadows for more info for now.

 

[FaolainWolf]

After looking at the images on Pangolin, I'm more than a little concerned about the image quality. It's certainly not as good as a 100-500 with 1.4x extender. And the comparison images are taken with a relatively low resolution camera -- the R3. I think the differences would be more apparent with the higher resolution of an R5. (And the difference between 700mm and 800mm isn't very much.) Contrast gained in post is usually pretty artificial looking -- and the problem isn't so much lack of contrast as lack of detail. I think this is probably a GREAT lens for someone who doesn't own the 100-500 yet. But I don't think it's an upgrade from the 100-500. Unless a credible reviewer / tester shows otherwise, I will be relinquishing my pre-order.

 

[GreenViper]

Thanks for the links Alan and it has given me pause for thought. I think I will still go through with my pre-order but will hold off selling the 100-500 aand do some more direct comparisons too. I think the main point of concern for me was the longer range shots on the Pangolin review. The various zoo shots on other reviews and the shorter 15-20m range shots looked really good with plenty of detail but that 40m shot really wasn't good compared to 800 F5.6. It isn't going to that close to that expensive lens but it was a very significant difference at that distance.

 

[Elgogo]

I kind of in the fence to cancel my preorder. I have the 100-500mm and 99% of the time I’m at 500mm 7.1. So for this new lens I’m sure people will be using it at 800mm F9. Any use of teleconverts will decrease so much light gathering ability that unless I’m shooting in broad daylight images would be unusable. For sports you would only get average looking photos especially at F8 or F9, unless you are only photographing your grandson. I’m thinking it in using it for video but that aperture is kind of bothering me a bit

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the links Alan and it has given me pause for thought. I think I will still go through with my pre-order but will hold off selling the 100-500 aand do some more direct comparisons too. I think the main point of concern for me was the longer range shots on the Pangolin review. The various zoo shots on other reviews and the shorter 15-20m range shots looked really good with plenty of detail but that 40m shot really wasn't good compared to 800 F5.6. It isn't going to that close to that expensive lens but it was a very significant difference at that distance.

Her comments about long distances were very strange. She put the difference between the sharpness of the 800 f/5.6 and the 200-800 f/9 at distance down to atmospheric effects. But how can they be different for 2 lenses? Also, heat haze and shimmer might make shots impossible over 30-35m where she operates, but for much of my time in the UK, it's the least of my worries though not always so. Nikon has been in the habit of optimising lenses for closer distances, and it's all part of the limitations of lens design to get what is the best compromise overall. I am not cancelling my pre-order.

 

[mpmark]

Thanks for the links Alan and it has given me pause for thought. I think I will still go through with my pre-order but will hold off selling the 100-500 aand do some more direct comparisons too. I think the main point of concern for me was the longer range shots on the Pangolin review. The various zoo shots on other reviews and the shorter 15-20m range shots looked really good with plenty of detail but that 40m shot really wasn't good compared to 800 F5.6. It isn't going to that close to that expensive lens but it was a very significant difference at that distance.

I'm sorry but what did you expect to get at 800mm from a 17,999 lens vs 1899 lens lol. The thinking of people today is incredible.

 

[patrick1480]

After looking at the images on Pangolin, I'm more than a little concerned about the image quality. It's certainly not as good as a 100-500 with 1.4x extender. And the comparison images are taken with a relatively low resolution camera -- the R3. I think the differences would be more apparent with the higher resolution of an R5. (And the difference between 700mm and 800mm isn't very much.) Contrast gained in post is usually pretty artificial looking -- and the problem isn't so much lack of contrast as lack of detail. I think this is probably a GREAT lens for someone who doesn't own the 100-500 yet. But I don't think it's an upgrade from the 100-500. Unless a credible reviewer / tester shows otherwise, I will be relinquishing my pre-order.

Those people are paid for review of course won’t say too much negative about the lens especially the IQ at long end. IMO the 100-500 with 1.4x is still a better choice if you already have them (I do). Small and compact easy to handle. I’m sure the 200-800 is a great lens but switching from 100-500 is a hard decision..

 

[MOBelue]

I’d like to see a comparison between the 100–500 with a 1.4 ET. I’m concerned about the loss of image stabilization at the long end.

For me, I would be more interested in keeping the 100-500 with a 1.4 ET, and looking into an EOS R5 mk II with a better sensor and faster read out, potentially. I regularly shoot in crop mode with the R5 using a shortcut on the camera and get 20 megapixel images. That’s enough to crop and still leave at least five megapixels. The better image stabilization at the Long end also allows me to hand hold shots with lower shutter speeds, in order to, “shoot it dark,“ and bring up the exposure with less noise in post.

I’m also concerned about the weight and balance at the longer end. Add an extender to the 100–500 puts the weight or extra weight back towards the camera body and the balance is fine.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Those people are paid for review of course won’t say too much negative about the lens especially the IQ at long end. IMO the 100-500 with 1.4x is still a better choice if you already have them (I do). Small and compact easy to handle. I’m sure the 200-800 is a great lens but switching from 100-500 is a hard decision..

She is paid by the safari.
She would much rather you rent an RF 800 f/5.6 from them than bring your own RF 200-800.

 

[GreenViper]

I'm sorry but what did you expect to get at 800mm from a 17,999 lens vs 1899 lens lol. The thinking of people today is incredible.

Obviously there is going to a big difference between these lenses. However the difference between the two lenses on her shorter range shots is not that great but very significanat at 40m indicating that perhaps the 200-800 isn't so good at those longer distances. That was my point.

 

[blackcoffee17]

From what I have seen so far, it is pretty good and sharp at 800mm. I am more worried about the aperture.
Already 7.1 at 300mm and F8 below 500mm is pushing it a little.

 

[markjholloway]

I'm confused. It looks like an "L" lens but it's not? Is this the next level of Canon marketing?

 

[Jacksonhole Jeff]

Why Canon does this super slow shutter crap is beyond me i guess $$$$ and they know no matter what they build people will buy it!!! Not even 3rd party companies go beyond F6.3 at 600. The 100-500 would have been a bad as lens if it was a 1-500F4.5-5.6 but here we set at F7.1. I know the guy that had the only one in the USA to test and I talked to him yesterday this is what he told me! (Its extremely versatile, and sharp. Perhaps, not as sharp as the 100-500 at long end, but certainly capable of excellent results. It will be a gift for video!!!! Add the use of any of the AI NR and sharpening software the results will be outstanding. They will not be available for a while…I had the only one in US.). I was hoping for something other than F6.3-F9 why it couldn\'t be F4.5-F8 is flat stupid on canons part IMO, when Sigma can build a F4.5-F6.3 60-600 for the same, money. It should have been something like F6.3@600 F7.1@700 F8@ 800 are close to that. Canon is not building lenses like they use to 300F4, 400F5.6 what happened to lenses like those????? For the wildlife crowd Nikon is killing it again!!!!

 

[danfaz]

I'm confused. It looks like an "L" lens but it's not? Is this the next level of Canon marketing?

It may be marketing, but it's not the fist time they've made a white non-L lens.

 

[danfaz]

Not even 3rd party companies go beyond F6.3 at 600.

Hmm, could that be because they don't make any current zoom lenses that exceed 600mm?

 

[AlanF]

Why Canon does this super slow shutter crap is beyond me i guess $$$$ and they know no matter what they build people will buy it!!! Not even 3rd party companies go beyond F6.3 at 600. The 100-500 would have been a bad as lens if it was a 1-500F4.5-5.6 but here we set at F7.1. I know the guy that had the only one in the USA to test and I talked to him yesterday this is what he told me! (Its extremely versatile, and sharp. Perhaps, not as sharp as the 100-500 at long end, but certainly capable of excellent results. It will be a gift for video!!!! Add the use of any of the AI NR and sharpening software the results will be outstanding. They will not be available for a while…I had the only one in US.). I was hoping for something other than F6.3-F9 why it couldn\'t be F4.5-F8 is flat stupid on canons part IMO, when Sigma can build a F4.5-F6.3 60-600 for the same, money. It should have been something like F6.3@600 F7.1@700 F8@ 800 are close to that. Canon is not building lenses like they use to 300F4, 400F5.6 what happened to lenses like those????? For the wildlife crowd Nikon is killing it again!!!!

An 800mm f/8 would need a front element of 100mm or greater and put it in the league of a big white for filters and push its weight up as well as the price just for a gain 1/3 rd of a stop and not able to take 95mm filters. As for Nikon killing it, they do exactly the same: their latest excellent 400mm is f/4.5 not f/4 - half the length of the 800/9 and half the f/number so also we can put a 95mm filter on it. Same is true for theirs and others 600/6.3 vs 600/5.6.

flat stupid on canons part IMO"

There are more flat stupid remarks and more "crap" in this thread than from Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It may be marketing, but it's not the fist time they've made a white non-L lens.

Yes, but unless you count the 400mm DO lenses that were effectively L series, you need to go back before the EF mount to find them.