Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[AlanF]

The last update I got before the new version (which I haven't purchased) is more flexible than the original version. I can see where it would very convenient if you were working directly from raw files, but I use LR as home base and all the other programs as plug-ins. Conveniently, the PL plug-in does transfer a raw file to PL so I can use the excellent RAW developer in that program. Have you found that the raw developer in Topaz Photo AI to be as good as the the one in PL7?.

I use Topaz on jpegs from PL6.

 

[Dragon]

I use Topaz on jpegs from PL6.

Why do you do processing on JPEGs when you could as easily have a 16 bit TIFF or DNG?

 

[koenkooi]

The last update I got before the new version (which I haven't purchased) is more flexible than the original version. I can see where it would very convenient if you were working directly from raw files, but I use LR as home base and all the other programs as plug-ins. Conveniently, the PL plug-in does transfer a raw file to PL so I can use the excellent RAW developer in that program. Have you found that the raw developer in Topaz Photo AI to be as good as the the one in PL7?.

The standalone topaz denoise applies a colour profile that is made by someone without actual eyes, so I stopped trying to run it on RAWs.
Maybe the all-in-one app fixed what they didn’t fix across a year and 3 releases in the standalone app.

 

[AlanF]

Why do you do processing on JPEGs when you could as easily have a 16 bit TIFF or DNG?

90% of what I do sees only the inside of DxO. For, most of the rest, some PS or Topaz, jpegs are good enough, If it look like it will make a difference I do occasionally use a dng.

 

[docsmith]

Get an RF 100-400mm - best mm/$ on the market, fantastic quality for the money. On the crop R7 nearly as good as the 100-500 on the R5. For insects at mfd it beats every supertele irrespective of $.

Thanks. I've noticed that this is a much loved lens. As of right now, I own the EF 70-300L and EF 100-400 II. I am hopeful Canon releases a RF 70-300L that is small/light similar to the 70-200's. But, the Rf 100-400 may actually already be that lens and if I transition to RF, I can see it ending up in my kit. But, for now, a lens really has to do something unique for me to consider it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But, the Rf 100-400 may actually already be that lens and if I transition to RF, I can see it ending up in my kit. But, for now, a lens really has to do something unique for me to consider it.

At 6.5" and 1.4 lbs, what the RF 100-400 does for me is enable me to bring it along when I otherwise would not bring a longer zoom at all.

 

[tron]

At 6.5" and 1.4 lbs, what the RF 100-400 does for me is enable me to bring it along when I otherwise would not bring a longer zoom at all.

Likewise. Paired with R7 it is put inside bags like the one I get to my workplace or even the one I take to the beach.

 

[Dragon]

The latest update from DXO for PL7 has profiles for the 200-800 both with and without TCs. Also profile for the 28-105 f/2.8. Very quick for DXO. They seem to have staffed up the lens profile department.

 

[koenkooi]

The latest update from DXO for PL7 has profiles for the 200-800 both with and without TCs. Also profile for the 28-105 f/2.8. Very quick for DXO. They seem to have staffed up the lens profile department.

I'm curious about the results when using DeepPrimeXD, for its demosaicing algo, not for the denoising and nudge of the lens sharpness slider, e.g. 0.15. I have noticed that the lens sharpness slider does very different things based on the lens used as well as the lens+body combo. Where I can have it set to 0.40 on some lenses to get a barely noticable effect, on recent RF lenses that amount will get me a cartoonishly over-sharpened image

I've set my import preset to 0.15 and use the denoise preview window to judge the results, since DxO refuses to implement WYSIWYG, even the sharpness tools only work when zoomed in at 75% or larger. The denoise preview window shows all the operations in effect, not just the denoising. That makes judging the final result a lot easier.

 

[Dragon]

I'm curious about the results when using DeepPrimeXD, for its demosaicing algo, not for the denoising and nudge of the lens sharpness slider, e.g. 0.15. I have noticed that the lens sharpness slider does very different things based on the lens used as well as the lens+body combo. Where I can have it set to 0.40 on some lenses to get a barely noticable effect, on recent RF lenses that amount will get me a cartoonishly over-sharpened image

I've set my import preset to 0.15 and use the denoise preview window to judge the results, since DxO refuses to implement WYSIWYG, even the sharpness tools only work when zoomed in at 75% or larger. The denoise preview window shows all the operations in effect, not just the denoising. That makes judging the final result a lot easier.

Yes, that denoise preview window is critical to knowing what you are going to get. The default sharpening in the profile for the 200-800 (particularly with the 1.4 TC) is a little on the aggressive side, but it really does bring out the detail and it can be turned down.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, that denoise preview window is critical to knowing what you are going to get. The default sharpening in the profile for the 200-800 (particularly with the 1.4 TC) is a little on the aggressive side, but it really does bring out the detail and it can be turned down.

I noticed the same as posted in https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...ng-the-latest-canon-lenses.43197/#post-983573
It's particularly aggressive with the 200-800 on the R7 but more satisfactory with the R5. I wrote to DxO about a similar aggressiveness with the 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm but with no response. It seems to me that the DxO optical modules are fine with very sharp lenses when little sharpening is required but become problematic when correction is more critical.

 

[AlanF]

Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM

An unabashedly huge zoom for Canon mirrorless

uk.pcmag.com

PC Mag, one of the better sites, and has published a review today. It complains that the AF is not very consistent, especially in dim light. I find for BIF the AF is not tip top but good for static birds. His MTF resolutions are quite different from those reported by Digital Camera World, which had the lens sharpest at 400mm and very weak at 800mm. "Using the standard chart, the lens scores right at the cusp of the excellent range for the 45MP EOS R5 sensor at 200mm f/6.3-11 (3,700-4,100 lines). With the smaller chart, the results are lower (2,400-2,600 lines), but in line with other long lenses I've tested with the same equipment. Lab results are a bit better at 400mm and f/7.1-16 (2,400-2,700 lines), the best at 600mm f/8-16 (3,600-3,000 lines), and slightly lower again at 800mm f/9-11 (2,900-2,500 lines). It's typical for a lens to get sharper as you stop down, though diffraction and vibrations during testing likely caused the drop-off at longer focal lengths. Even so, we consider these results excellent overall." These are in line with what I find from comparing fine details from birds and charts, and the two testers have lenses with wide copy variation.

Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM review: all hail the new superzoom king

The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM is a super-telephoto lens that offers (mostly) super performance

www.digitalcameraworld.com

Digital Camera World, on the other hand, finds the AF exceptional!

The tester prefers the RF 100-500mm because of better AF. I'm finding that 90% of my shots are at 800mm so I am tending to use it more than the 100-500mm, and the two have very similar sharpness at 500mm, with the 200-800mm probably slightly better.