Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[neuroanatomist]

The lens is f8 at 500 and 600mm, the difference at 500mm is 2/3 of a stop, the difference at 600mm is 1/3 of a stop. I doubt that this is significant when using the lens. As @AlanF has shown, the R5 is capable of very high ISO values and (very) good image quality with skilled post-processing.

Oh, puuhhleeeeze. Everyone knows that ISO 25,600 is fine but ISO 32,000 is unusable. 1/3-stop makes all the difference.

 

[George47]

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

It’s made to compete with Sony 200-600 which is white also. A black zoom lens in the almost $2000 range would be hard to sell.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It’s made to compete with Sony 200-600 which is white also. A black zoom lens in the almost $2000 range would be hard to sell.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Nikon.

 

[Dragon]

The Pangolin website spends time discussing atmospheric conditions and she shows the 200-800 to be soft where the 800/5.6 is sharp.

That commentary was truly weird. Either she has no idea what she is talking about or just didn't spit out what she was trying to say correctly. In my experience, if there is any difference in atmospheric behavior between lenses, it would be the other way around. I have occasionally seen situations where small super zoom (e.g. Panasonic FZ80) would be more distorted, but sharper than something like the EF 800 f/5.6. Not sure of the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the area of atmosphere intercepted and the larger lens tends to average the distortion over a larger area whereas the small lens is looking through a smaller cross-section of air that may be bent, but some sharpness still survives. Neither image is particularly useful, but just an observation. I have also noticed similar averaging behavior with exposure time. Very short exposures will show more distortion and less blurring, whereas very long exposures will be very blurred, but not as distorted and that makes perfect sense in the presences of dynamic thermal distortion. None of that supports what the Pangolin lady said, but then, I have not been on Safari in Africa .

 

[LSXPhotog]

I haven’t seen anyone test this lens on an R5 yet…everyone used an R6, R6II, and R3. Which I found a little strange…but now I’m beginning to suspect that the lens doesn’t hold up very well to higher resolution sensors. We’ll see how it all plays out. My pre-order is in -so I’m in line- and there is plenty of time to cancel it.

I’m going to scrutinize the image quality more now and go through more reviews.

 

[Dragon]

I haven’t seen anyone test this lens on an R5 yet…everyone used an R6, R6II, and R3. Which I found a little strange…but now I’m beginning to suspect that the lens doesn’t hold up very well to higher resolution sensors. We’ll see how it all plays out. My pre-order is in -so I’m in line- and there is plenty of time to cancel it.

I’m going to scrutinize the image quality more now and go through more reviews.

More likely they were limited by Canon and the state of the firmware. Gordon at CameraLabs used an R5 in his preliminary evaluation, but he didn't post any stills, just some video. I doubt we will see much more detail until the lens starts shipping.

 

[AlanF]

That commentary was truly weird. Either she has no idea what she is talking about or just didn't spit out what she was trying to say correctly. In my experience, if there is any difference in atmospheric behavior between lenses, it would be the other way around. I have occasionally seen situations where small super zoom (e.g. Panasonic FZ80) would be more distorted, but sharper than something like the EF 800 f/5.6. Not sure of the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the area of atmosphere intercepted and the larger lens tends to average the distortion over a larger area whereas the small lens is looking through a smaller cross-section of air that may be bent, but some sharpness still survives. Neither image is particularly useful, but just an observation. I have also noticed similar averaging behavior with exposure time. Very short exposures will show more distortion and less blurring, whereas very long exposures will be very blurred, but not as distorted and that makes perfect sense in the presences of dynamic thermal distortion. None of that supports what the Pangolin lady said, but then, I have not been on Safari in Africa .

About 10 years ago, someone posted here that they circumvented heat haze in an image by using a 10-stop ND filter and long exposure so the haze averaged out. I reserve judgement on the RF 200-800mm until I have tested it myself. I don't understand her comments. Also, I have been on safaris in Africa and got good shots at 800mm in the right circumstances.

 

[Dragon]

About 10 years ago, someone posted here that they circumvented heat haze in an image by using a 10-stop ND filter and long exposure so the haze averaged out. I reserve judgement on the RF 200-800mm until I have tested it myself. I don't understand her comments. Also, I have been on safaris in Africa and got good shots at 800mm in the right circumstances.

I am comfortable that it will be a welcome addition to the stable. The results from long exposures in bad air can be quite variable. for relatively close shots with local thermal distortion, the averaging can get rid of most of the distortion, but the result is very low contrast and usually pretty blurry. For longer shots, you can get some real surprises, since the mirage effect can cause the subject to move over substantial distance. You can actually get a long exposure that looks more like a vapor trail than an image. The big telescopes have figured out how to do some correction using lasers to probe the atmosphere, but that is for essentially vertical shots and I have not heard of such technology being helpful for lateral terrestrial photography (even if we could afford it). There is a power pole about a mile from our back yard and surprisingly, some of best images I have gotten of it were with an old Nikon 1000mm mirror lens with the original Nikon 2x extender (2000mm f/22). I have shots with the 800 L f/5.6 and 2xTC that are comparable, but not materially better. I use the power pole as a routine air test because on bad days it looks like a pretzel. Here is a sample of a 100% crop from the mirror lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think I’m in the same boat as you. I am waiting for that 200-500 F4 and not sure if I should spend the money on this lens that could potentially sit on my desk.

I honestly would not buy it then.
It will not beat the 200-500 with a 1.4x Extender.
If you just want it as a weight saver then get the RF 800 f/11.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

About 10 years ago, someone posted here that they circumvented heat haze in an image by using a 10-stop ND filter and long exposure so the haze averaged out. I reserve judgement on the RF 200-800mm until I have tested it myself. I don't understand her comments. Also, I have been on safaris in Africa and got good shots at 800mm in the right circumstances.

It was my impression that it was wildlife photographers who dread heat haze.

 

[AlanF]

It was my impression that it was wildlife photographers who dread heat haze.

Mad dogs and photographers go out in the midday sun.

 

[fogleman]

The MTF charts suggest that at 800mm this lens is about the same sharpness as the 100-500 + 1.4x (at 700mm). I use that combo often and it's very usable. It's sharper than the 800 f/11.

The reviews I've seen so far did a pretty crappy job in terms of showing us good sample photos IMO.

 

[chong67]

I am thinking of getting this camera. The handle cannot be remove at all?

 

[Dragon]

I am thinking of getting this camera. The handle cannot be remove at all?

Officially it is non-removable, but one of the reviews mentioned removing it, so we don't really know at this point.

 

[P-visie]

I haven’t seen anyone test this lens on an R5 yet…everyone used an R6, R6II, and R3. Which I found a little strange…but now I’m beginning to suspect that the lens doesn’t hold up very well to higher resolution sensors. We’ll see how it all plays out. My pre-order is in -so I’m in line- and there is plenty of time to cancel it.

I’m going to scrutinize the image quality more now and go through more reviews.

There are sample pictures (jpg) taken with the R5 on the Photography Blog (link).

 

[Hector1970]

No. Extenders make no difference to pixels per duck. The key factor is the area of the lens, which determines the amount of light that passes through and extenders don't change the area.

To be more accurate, an 800/9 has a diameter of 89mm, and a 500/7.1 has 70.4mm (without or with extenders), so the relative areas are 89/70.4 squared = 1.6, which is 2/3rd stop better.

Thank you for the explanation

 

[DhlcadR6]

Most of the whining is down to "i want big white aperture at consumer prices". So do I of course, but I can evaluate this for what it is. The only way most mortals can get an 800mm zoom. For me, its ideal. The MTF looks slightly better than the 800/11 at 800. That lens has proven to be a good performer IQ wise, and mine is no exception to that. Sounds like the focus and tracking is quite fast on the zoom as well. Pretty exciting to me, for the price. I've got a preorder at one place and am wait listed at another.

-Brian

Yeah... Those people are also demanding a Small light 10-1000mm f2 IS USM Macro Tilt-shift PZ

The lens is f8 at 500 and 600mm, the difference at 500mm is 2/3 of a stop, the difference at 600mm is 1/3 of a stop. I doubt that this is significant when using the lens. As @AlanF has shown, the R5 is capable of very high ISO values and (very) good image quality with skilled post-processing.

I think the ones who don't like this lens just misunderstood the usage of this lens(&the other XX-600mm zooms). Not just the RF 200-800, but Z180-600/200-600G/60-600 are not capable to do low light well. In daylight is where these lenses shine. Nikon's selling point is the 20mm wider. Sigma sacrifce IQ for having 60mm. Sony is the benchmark. Canon now joins the club with extra 200mm as its selling point

 

[dbcooper]

For me this is a let down.

I still prefer the Sony lens. Won’t buy it.

 

[DhlcadR6]

For me this is a let down.

I still prefer the Sony lens. Won’t buy it.

That's if you have a Sony body already. I'm disappointed with the Sony x1.4 TC AF performance with 200-600G. If RF 200-800 is better, I will decide to pick it over the Sony.

It's too early to call it a letdown, wait for actual reviews and then decided to dislike it or not.

 

[tron]

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.

Good catch. The atmospheric effects had made me crazy thinking for a few seconds that even my 500 f/4L IS II (without TCs) was rubbish! I composed myself and returned in the afternoon and everything was fine.

Maybe it was a polite/diplomatic way to warn us? Anyway I am thinking that if the drop in IQ is real but not serious DXO could fix it.