Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[koenkooi]

Tried it briefly - not good with the one bird i tried. There's been a huge amount of regular upgrades with Topaz, and that's what you pay for them to get it right.

I’m still bitter about the topaz denoise releases being buggy and then suddenly getting discontinued.

 

[AlanF]

You definitely need Internet bandwidth to keep up with Topaz updates. That said, they have stayed at the front of the curve. LR "enhance" works well to a point, but if detail is really in the mud, both PL and Topaz work better in my experience. I have also found that using either LR "enhance" or PL prime XD if I turn down the slider a bit to let a little noise through and then follow up with a pass from Topaz Denoise I get a more detailed result than just cranking up the slider on either of the first two.

I like the folks at Topaz. They continuously upgrade and are responsive if you mail them. The integrated Topaz Photo means you don't the individual components, which might be a pain for some but I use the equivalent of denoise, sharpen and gigapixel.

 

[Dragon]

I’m still bitter about the topaz denoise releases being buggy and then suddenly getting discontinued.

No mileage in being bitter. I have just accepted the fact that we pay them to experiment because most of the experiments are pretty cool. Their Video AI program is amazing for recovering old 8mm film. It can turn a jerky, flashy, noisy mess into a very watchable video at 50 or 60 Hz frame rate. Image stabilization, noise reduction, and frame rate conversion all in one pass, but it does take a LOT of computing power.

 

[Dragon]

I like the folks at Topaz. They continuously upgrade and are responsive if you mail them. The integrated Topaz Photo means you don't the individual components, which might be a pain for some but I use the equivalent of denoise, sharpen and gigapixel.

I have stayed with the separate components and keep up the service contract. They gave me the integrated program free last year, but haven't seen the upgrade. I didn't find the integrated program to have all the subtlety of the individual programs.

 

[docsmith]

I thought I would post this here as it is essentially my review of the 200-800. As it got a bit long, I didn't want to leave it in the image gallery.

I have now shot about 1500 to 2k images with this lens on the R5. I've shot in snow, rain, late afternoon sun, and now mid-morning light.

A quick conclusion....but for what it is, a non-"L" lens that goes out to 800 mm and costs less than $2k USD, it is phenomenal. Great job on Canon's behalf for releasing this lens. I will absolutely be recommending this lens to people. I really expect this to end up being loved by enthusiast birders, photographers that need reach, and maybe do not have budget for a "Big White."

If that is you....perhaps it is best to get this lens and stop reading. This is a great lens.

I think my initial concerns were accurate. Back when this was announced I debated pre-ordering with the general thought being that I would absolutely love a lens in this range, I could likely get used to f/9, but I suspected I would have wanted Canon invested a bit more into it and made it a $3-4k lens. That pretty much holds.

Many great photos will be taken with this lens, I have no doubt. I am pleased with a number of mine. Some I included just to give people examples, but some, I do really like.

The issues, IMO:

• Autofocus: This lens really needs light. Today at ~EV 14-15, it really did well. Not perfect, there were seagulls flying by that it didn't pick up. But on the birds in trees in good light and even in some shadow, long stretches of where the hit rate was great. No complaints. Probably >90%. EV 13, I found 68% hit rate. While I didn't calculate, in the snowstorm, at EV 10-11, it was pretty bad. There were entire series of me trying to photograph a bird, stretches of ~20 shots, without a single one in focus. Then, I would hit a good patch and I'd got the images that I posted. But f/9 seems to definitely be affecting AF. While I notice a dip with light using my other lenses...not like this.
• IQ. Not to get all "Zeissy" on people...but "micro-contrast".....this lens has none. Given enough light, this lens will take good, very good and maybe even a few excellent images. But those images where you feel that there is detail within the detail. Where you pixel-peep and, at least on my 2560x1440 27" display, the image still looks like a flawless picture. Nope, haven't seen a one of those using this lens. You go to 100% on these pictures and you see some issues, even in good light. For reasonable sized output, that will be fine. And sure, perhaps Topaz or another recent software will fix this, but I enjoy photography...post-processing, not as much.
• Nitpicks....The zoom ring isn't bad, but Canon does make lenses with much better zoom rings. Just needs effort when you want it to be easier. The foot is both a nice brace, helps while hand holding, but I would want it to be removable. As others have mentioned.

To get back to the good side, out of my collection of lenses, when needing reach out to 800 mm, only the 500 mm II provided better IQ while framing a small bird's (Junco) head at the same distance. Today, I was standing around with a group of other photographers with different gear (Oly, Nikon, Sony...). They were griping about different things, and, under this mornings conditions, I really didn't have any issues. Having 800 mm, I still cropped most of my images, but a few, in particular today's finches, are mostly if not entirely uncropped. It was great to sit near the tree, let them work towards me, and use the entire frame to take a picture of a small bird.

So, I'll finish off with I consider to be the pros:

• Zoom range...that is why we are even here, right? Excellent industry leading zoom range.
• IQ is actually very good. It is not "Big White" good. But you do not have Big White size, weight, or money. IQ is great for an 800 mm, <$2k lens. I would even argue, you could get near Big White quality more often than people that dropped $15k on a lens will want to admit.
• Ability to zoom. This is great. Even today, I saw an eagle getting ready to fly, I quickly gave myself a bit more room. I do not see going from 200-800 often but going from 800 to 600 is great. Then occasionally to less, if needed.
• The AF was good....in good light.
• The size/weight were such I handheld all day today.
• Big Whites draw attention. This lens will draw much less, if any at all. This can be important.

I do not have a 100-500 to compare this to. This process and listening to others have made me consider that lens more and more. I am impressed by the flexibility, superior IQ from 100-500, smaller/lighter, and comparatively as good out to 700 mm are all appealing. I actually might sell my 150-600S and 100-400 II and pick up the 100-500. But, I have never liked the fact that you can't collapse the 100-500 with a TC inserted. Perhaps this is a non-issue to most, but I use these lenses in a lot of conditions. To me, that means I am walking around with it extended, which I don't like, or I am frequently taking the extender on/off, which I do not like. Each person's mileage on this may vary, but I am still a bit hung up on that, which is a plus for keeping the RF 200-800.

So, if you are a photographer that wants focal length out to 800 mm, wants the zoom functionality, but are not likely to spend for a Big White. Or, if you have a Big White and want a smaller/lighter, more discrete option and want the zoom functionality....This is a great option. Just understand, there is no perfect lens, especially an 800 mm lens for less than $2k. The biggest trade off, IMO, was AF in lower light.

 

[AlanF]

I thought I would post this here as it is essentially my review of the 200-800. As it got a bit long, I didn't want to leave it in the image gallery.

I have now shot about 1500 to 2k images with this lens on the R5. I've shot in snow, rain, late afternoon sun, and now mid-morning light.

A quick conclusion....but for what it is, a non-"L" lens that goes out to 800 mm and costs less than $2k USD,, it is phenomenal. Great job on Canon's behalf for releasing this lens. I will absolutely be recommending this lens to people. I really expect this to end up being loved by enthusiast birders, photographers that need reach, and maybe do not have budget for a "Big White."

If that is you....perhaps it is best to get this lens and stop reading.

I think my initial concerns were accurate. Back when this was announced I debated pre-ordering with the general thought being that I would absolutely love a lens in this range, I could likely get used to f/9, but I suspected I would have wanted Canon invested a bit more into it and made it a $3-4k lens. That pretty much holds.

Many great photos will be taken with this lens, I have no doubt. I am pleased with a number of mine. Some I included just to give people examples, but some, I do really like.

The issues, IMO:

• Autofocus: This lens really needs light. Today at ~EV 14-15, it really did well. Not perfect, there were seagulls flying by that it didn't pick up. But on the birds in trees in good light and even in some shadow, long stretches of where the hit rate was great. No complaints. Probably >90%. EV 13, I found 68% hit rate. While I didn't calculate, in the snowstorm, at EV 10-11, it was pretty bad. There were entire series of me trying to photograph a bird, stretches of ~20 shots, without a single one in focus. Then, I would hit a good patch and I'd got the images that I posted. But f/9 seems to definitely be affecting AF. While I notice a dip with light using my other lenses...not like this.
• IQ. Not to get all "Zeissy" on people...but "micro-contrast".....this lens has none. Given enough light, this lens will take good, very good and maybe even a few excellent images. But those images where you feel that there is detail within the detail. Where you pixel-peep and, at least on my 2560x1440 27" display, the image still looks like a flawless picture. Nope, haven't seen a one of those using this lens. You go to 100% on these pictures and you see some issues, even in good light. For reasonable sized output, that will be fine. And sure, perhaps Topaz or another recent software will fix this, but I enjoy photography...post-processing, not as much.
• Nitpicks....The zoom ring isn't bad, but Canon does make lenses with much better zoom rings. Just needs effort when you want it to be easier. The foot is both a nice brace, helps while hand holding, but I would want it to be removable. As others have mentioned.

To get back to the good side, out of my collection of lenses, when needing reach out to 800 mm, only the 500 mm II provided better IQ while framing a small bird's (Junco) head at the same distance. Today, I was standing around with a group of other photographers with different gear (Oly, Nikon, Sony...). They were griping about different things, and, under this mornings conditions, I really didn't have any issues. Having 800 mm, I still cropped most of my images, but a few, in particular Today's finches, are mostly if not entirely uncropped. It was great to sit near the tree, let them work towards me, and use the entire frame to take a picture of a small bird.

So, I'll finish off with I consider to be the pros:

• Zoom range...that is why we are even here, right? Excellent industry leading zoom range.
• IQ is actually very good. It is not "Big White" good. But you do not have Big White size, weight, or money. IQ is great for an 800 mm, <$2k lens.
• If you need reach, then this was the second best out of my options to get reach.
• Ability to zoom. This is great. Even today, I saw an eagle getting ready to fly, I quickly gave myself a bit more room. I do not see going from 200-800 often but going from 800 to 600 is great. Then occasionally to less, if needed.
• The AF was good....in good light.
• The size/weight were such I handheld all day today.
• Big Whites draw attention. This lens will draw much less, if any at all. This can be important.

I do not have a 100-500 to compare this to. This process and listening to others have made me consider that lens more and more. I am impressed by the flexibility, superior 100-500, smaller/lighter, and comparatively as good out to 700 mm are all appealing. I actually might sell my 150-600S and 100-400 II and pick up the 100-500. But, I have never liked the fact that you can't collapse the 100-500 with a TC inserted. Perhaps this is a non-issue to most, but I use these lenses in a lot of conditions. To me, that means I am walking around with it extended, which I don't like, or I am frequently taking the extender on/off, which I do not like. Each person's mileage on this may vary, but I am still a bit hung up on that, which is a plus for keeping the RF 200-800.

So, if you are a photographer that wants focal length out to 800 mm, wants the zoom functionality, but are not likely to spend for a Big White. Or, if you have a Big White and want a smaller/lighter, more discrete option and want the zoom functionality....This is a great option. Just understand, there is no perfect lens, especially an 800 mm lens for less than $2k. The biggest trade off, IMO, was AF in lower light.

Thanks for all those thoughtful points. Regarding the TCs, I've spent a lot of time in the past few weeks re-evaluating my use of TCs on the RF 100-500mm and have come to the conclusion I don't gain much from them. The bare lens is simply so sharp you can do a lot in post to increase size - I'll post a thread maybe tomorrow. Regarding micro-contrast, once you start getting to f/9 -f/11, you start losing the fine details that contribute to micro-contrast.

 

[docsmith]

Regarding micro-contrast, once you start getting to f/9 -f/11, you start losing the fine details that contribute to micro-contrast.

Thanks Alan....I was thinking about that. I will say, I prefer the rendering of the 500 II with or without 1.4tc, even at f/9 (I didn't go f/11, but I could). It simply provides better details, smoother transitions. I suspect you are thinking diffraction. It would come into play here. But I think there is also something with the 200-800. Great IQ. Approaching Big White level. But not there, IMO.

As for the TCs. I am very curious regarding your conclusions. The last time I saw a detailed test, it was closer than might think and camera bodies had ~20 MPs.

 

[Dragon]

I thought I would post this here as it is essentially my review of the 200-800. As it got a bit long, I didn't want to leave it in the image gallery.

I have now shot about 1500 to 2k images with this lens on the R5. I've shot in snow, rain, late afternoon sun, and now mid-morning light.

A quick conclusion....but for what it is, a non-"L" lens that goes out to 800 mm and costs less than $2k USD, it is phenomenal. Great job on Canon's behalf for releasing this lens. I will absolutely be recommending this lens to people. I really expect this to end up being loved by enthusiast birders, photographers that need reach, and maybe do not have budget for a "Big White."

If that is you....perhaps it is best to get this lens and stop reading. This is a great lens.

I think my initial concerns were accurate. Back when this was announced I debated pre-ordering with the general thought being that I would absolutely love a lens in this range, I could likely get used to f/9, but I suspected I would have wanted Canon invested a bit more into it and made it a $3-4k lens. That pretty much holds.

Many great photos will be taken with this lens, I have no doubt. I am pleased with a number of mine. Some I included just to give people examples, but some, I do really like.

The issues, IMO:

• Autofocus: This lens really needs light. Today at ~EV 14-15, it really did well. Not perfect, there were seagulls flying by that it didn't pick up. But on the birds in trees in good light and even in some shadow, long stretches of where the hit rate was great. No complaints. Probably >90%. EV 13, I found 68% hit rate. While I didn't calculate, in the snowstorm, at EV 10-11, it was pretty bad. There were entire series of me trying to photograph a bird, stretches of ~20 shots, without a single one in focus. Then, I would hit a good patch and I'd got the images that I posted. But f/9 seems to definitely be affecting AF. While I notice a dip with light using my other lenses...not like this.
• IQ. Not to get all "Zeissy" on people...but "micro-contrast".....this lens has none. Given enough light, this lens will take good, very good and maybe even a few excellent images. But those images where you feel that there is detail within the detail. Where you pixel-peep and, at least on my 2560x1440 27" display, the image still looks like a flawless picture. Nope, haven't seen a one of those using this lens. You go to 100% on these pictures and you see some issues, even in good light. For reasonable sized output, that will be fine. And sure, perhaps Topaz or another recent software will fix this, but I enjoy photography...post-processing, not as much.
• Nitpicks....The zoom ring isn't bad, but Canon does make lenses with much better zoom rings. Just needs effort when you want it to be easier. The foot is both a nice brace, helps while hand holding, but I would want it to be removable. As others have mentioned.

To get back to the good side, out of my collection of lenses, when needing reach out to 800 mm, only the 500 mm II provided better IQ while framing a small bird's (Junco) head at the same distance. Today, I was standing around with a group of other photographers with different gear (Oly, Nikon, Sony...). They were griping about different things, and, under this mornings conditions, I really didn't have any issues. Having 800 mm, I still cropped most of my images, but a few, in particular today's finches, are mostly if not entirely uncropped. It was great to sit near the tree, let them work towards me, and use the entire frame to take a picture of a small bird.

So, I'll finish off with I consider to be the pros:

• Zoom range...that is why we are even here, right? Excellent industry leading zoom range.
• IQ is actually very good. It is not "Big White" good. But you do not have Big White size, weight, or money. IQ is great for an 800 mm, <$2k lens. I would even argue, you could get near Big White quality more often than people that dropped $15k on a lens will want to admit.
• Ability to zoom. This is great. Even today, I saw an eagle getting ready to fly, I quickly gave myself a bit more room. I do not see going from 200-800 often but going from 800 to 600 is great. Then occasionally to less, if needed.
• The AF was good....in good light.
• The size/weight were such I handheld all day today.
• Big Whites draw attention. This lens will draw much less, if any at all. This can be important.

I do not have a 100-500 to compare this to. This process and listening to others have made me consider that lens more and more. I am impressed by the flexibility, superior IQ from 100-500, smaller/lighter, and comparatively as good out to 700 mm are all appealing. I actually might sell my 150-600S and 100-400 II and pick up the 100-500. But, I have never liked the fact that you can't collapse the 100-500 with a TC inserted. Perhaps this is a non-issue to most, but I use these lenses in a lot of conditions. To me, that means I am walking around with it extended, which I don't like, or I am frequently taking the extender on/off, which I do not like. Each person's mileage on this may vary, but I am still a bit hung up on that, which is a plus for keeping the RF 200-800.

So, if you are a photographer that wants focal length out to 800 mm, wants the zoom functionality, but are not likely to spend for a Big White. Or, if you have a Big White and want a smaller/lighter, more discrete option and want the zoom functionality....This is a great option. Just understand, there is no perfect lens, especially an 800 mm lens for less than $2k. The biggest trade off, IMO, was AF in lower light.

If you found that only the EF 500L II surpassed the 200-800, I would call that high praise. The 500 L II is one of the sharpest supertelephto lenses (particularly with extenders) that Canon has ever produced and it weighs almost twice as much. I found the the 200-800 was also very close to my EF 800 L, which is similarly high praise. The fact that this lens is a wide range zoom and light enough to carry truly makes it a winner. The only real limitation is available light, and that is to be expected, given the size and the aperture. As to micro contrast, I find a touch of "texture" in LR or "micro contrast" in PL does a decent job of recovery unless the ISO is just too high. I am keeping my copy .

 

[cooldood]

Every site is "backordered" so I wonder what kind of lead times we can expect.

 

[AlanF]

Every site is "backordered" so I wonder what kind of lead times we can expect.

Don't worry dood, we'll carry on without it, and the longer the wait the more time for the gas to go.

 

[docsmith]

If you found that only the EF 500L II surpassed the 200-800, I would call that high praise. The 500 L II is one of the sharpest supertelephto lenses (particularly with extenders) that Canon has ever produced and it weighs almost twice as much. I found the the 200-800 was also very close to my EF 800 L, which is similarly high praise. The fact that this lens is a wide range zoom and light enough to carry truly makes it a winner. The only real limitation is available light, and that is to be expected, given the size and the aperture. As to micro contrast, I find a touch of "texture" in LR or "micro contrast" in PL does a decent job of recovery unless the ISO is just too high. I am keeping my copy .

Yes....after some initial frustration with the lower light scenes I was photographing....I definitely like the 200-800. I did call it phenominal...and being an engineer, I am not prone to superlatives

For people that want to get into the supertelephoto range, the way I am looking at it is something like this:

• <$1000. People should either save their money or consider a third party lens like a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 or the RF 100-400 w/ crop sensor camera.
• <$2000. We now have a clear winner. Get the RF 200-800. For so many people, this is a significant investment and as much as they will ever get to spend on a wildlife/bird lens. Canon has provided this excellent option (just understand about low light). If you do not need >400mm, RF 100-400 or a refurbished/used EF 100-400 II.
• <$3k-3,500. This gets a bit trickier. Almost double your money and you can get a 100-500 w1.4tc. I haven't tested myself, but from what I am seeing, if you favor birds with good light, might want to go even beyond 800 mm, I likely go 200-800. If you want flexibility, may shoot in less that good light, favor larger animals/landscapes, or want smaller/lighter options, then the 100-500L.
• $15k? Now we are talking a Big White: 600 f/4...the upcoming 200-500 f/4. But if you want portability, then you also need either the 100-500L or 200-800, and increase your budget to ~$18k. And, while I know that is a lot of money...I also know people with bass boats. And snowmobiles.

But, looking at that, classic Canon, they've populated multiple price points. It is just you start getting to the >$1k category, these lenses are good enough that, as noted by Bryan/TDP regarding the 200-800, it will be used by amateurs and professionals alike. These are all very good lenses.

 

[mikekeck]

Every site is "backordered" so I wonder what kind of lead times we can expect.

I ordered one from B&H on the announcement day (I think in the afternoon), and I still don't have it.

 

[koenkooi]

Every site is "backordered" so I wonder what kind of lead times we can expect.

It went ‘in stock’ twice the past week at a camera store here in .nl, so you could get lucky when one pops up near you.

 

[Dragon]

Yes....after some initial frustration with the lower light scenes I was photographing....I definitely like the 200-800. I did call it phenominal...and being an engineer, I am not prone to superlatives

For people that want to get into the supertelephoto range, the way I am looking at it is something like this:

• <$1000. People should either save their money or consider a third party lens like a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 or the RF 100-400 w/ crop sensor camera.
• <$2000. We now have a clear winner. Get the RF 200-800. For so many people, this is a significant investment and as much as they will ever get to spend on a wildlife/bird lens. Canon has provided this excellent option (just understand about low light). If you do not need >400mm, RF 100-400 or a refurbished/used EF 100-400 II.
• <$3k-3,500. This gets a bit trickier. Almost double your money and you can get a 100-500 w1.4tc. I haven't tested myself, but from what I am seeing, if you favor birds with good light, might want to go even beyond 800 mm, I likely go 200-800. If you want flexibility, may shoot in less that good light, favor larger animals/landscapes, or want smaller/lighter options, then the 100-500L.
• $15k? Now we are talking a Big White: 600 f/4...the upcoming 200-500 f/4. But if you want portability, then you also need either the 100-500L or 200-800, and increase your budget to ~$18k. And, while I know that is a lot of money...I also know people with bass boats. And snowmobiles.

But, looking at that, classic Canon, they've populated multiple price points. It is just you start getting to the >$1k category, these lenses are good enough that, as noted by Bryan/TDP regarding the 200-800, it will be used by amateurs and professionals alike. These are all very good lenses.

Good overview. The one pair you missed were the RF 600 and 800 f/11. If you pay attention to sales, they are quite inexpensive. I paid $399 for the 600 and $699 for the 800 on Canon Refurb and for those prices, they are both very good. The 600, in particular is quite small and light and when used with an R7 or R10, it has considerable reach. Clearly, f/11 needs light, but for many things near MFD (like my hummingbirds), you have to go to f/11 anyway to get the whole subject in focus. I like the 200-800 better, because it is 2/3rds of a stop faster and has a closer MFD, but I will keep the others for size and weight considerations. The sleeper in your list is the EF 100-400L II. It is every bit as good as the RF 100-500 in its range and if you happen to have the EF TCs (which I do), then it is sharper than the RF 600/11 with the 1.4 (and a stop faster) and almost as good as the 800/11 with a 2x extender. It is, however, not a featherweight and not bargain basement either.

 

[Del Paso]

Good overview. The one pair you missed were the RF 600 and 800 f/11. If you pay attention to sales, they are quite inexpensive. I paid $399 for the 600 and $699 for the 800 on Canon Refurb and for those prices, they are both very good. The 600, in particular is quite small and light and when used with an R7 or R10, it has considerable reach. Clearly, f/11 needs light, but for many things near MFD (like my hummingbirds), you have to go to f/11 anyway to get the whole subject in focus. I like the 200-800 better, because it is 2/3rds of a stop faster and has a closer MFD, but I will keep the others for size and weight considerations. The sleeper in your list is the EF 100-400L II. It is every bit as good as the RF 100-500 in its range and if you happen to have the EF TCs (which I do), then it is sharper than the RF 600/11 with the 1.4 (and a stop faster) and almost as good as the 800/11 with a 2x extender. It is, however, not a featherweight and not bargain basement either.

The EF 100-400 is one of my 2 EDC lenses. Sharp at every distance, diaphragm and focal length. If I didn't have it, the RF 100-500 would be my choice. Both are optically and mechanically first rate lenses!

 

[AlanF]

I have stayed with the separate components and keep up the service contract. They gave me the integrated program free last year, but haven't seen the upgrade. I didn't find the integrated program to have all the subtlety of the individual programs.

It's getting better daily!

 

[AlanF]

Yes....after some initial frustration with the lower light scenes I was photographing....I definitely like the 200-800. I did call it phenominal...and being an engineer, I am not prone to superlatives

For people that want to get into the supertelephoto range, the way I am looking at it is something like this:

• <$1000. People should either save their money or consider a third party lens like a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 or the RF 100-400 w/ crop sensor camera.

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 $.

 

[danfaz]

Every site is "backordered" so I wonder what kind of lead times we can expect.

CPW has a pre-order available with a small discount:

Street Price Preorders: RF 24-105 f/2.8L Z, RF 200-800, RF 10-20 | Canon Camera and Lens Deals - Canon Price Watch

www.cpricewatch.com

 

[AlanF]

CPW has a pre-order available with a small discount:

Street Price Preorders: RF 24-105 f/2.8L Z, RF 200-800, RF 10-20 | Canon Camera and Lens Deals - Canon Price Watch

www.cpricewatch.com

The price in the UK iconverted to USD $2900. I’ll wait until the gray market gets going.

 

[Dragon]

It's getting better daily!

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?.